|
Post by vasious on Jun 13, 2019 20:35:14 GMT -6
What does the AI build during a war?
Just wondering if it is building the expensive things that take a long time in Peace then an emergency program of DDs during the war
|
|
|
Post by Antediluvian Monster on Jun 14, 2019 0:45:47 GMT -6
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 . It might be useful to define what you mean by top heaviness so we don't talk past eachother. For example, I'd define a minimal balanced fleet as roughly as many cruisers total as capital ships and twice as many destroyers/large torpedo boats as capital ships. I'd say historical fleets rarely fell much below such ratios, e.g. British and German pre-WW1 building programs still included modern cruisers on this scale, as did Japanese 8-8 program. But the fleets in the OP, as well as what I have seen in the game tend to fall considerably below this.
|
|
|
Post by seawolf on Jun 14, 2019 1:08:51 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 14, 2019 1:31:28 GMT -6
I would point one thing.
There is no possible direct comparison between history and RTW for mostly several reason. I will go type of warshipone one by one:
ASW small vessels (Corvettes/DDE etc.): in history you need quite large number of them, in hundreds. In RTW you need max. several dozens on TP. This is quite a difference! Destroyers: In history you need huge number of them as they operate with fleet, patrolling coast etc. In RTW you need some of them for fleet duty but almost nothing else as fleet destroyers are used for other missions compared to real history where you need different vessels (in history, you need as UK destroyer in Norway, in Scapa Flow or one destroyer in Gibraltar, the second in Malta, the third in Alexandria, but in RTW only 1 destroyer can do it all)
Cruisers: In history you need a lot of them, patrolling oceans, scouting, protection of carrier forces, protection of convoys etc. In RTW some of it is simulated by "FS". However because missions are more tactial you need 1, 2 or 3 scout cruisers. In real history these cruisers needed to scout large part of ocean so they were much more numerous. Patrolling trade routes requests more crusiers too. This is another reason why you cannot get so high cruiser ratio in RTW compared to history. Capital ships (B/BB/BC): Queen of seas for 2-3 decades. In history they were hugh emphasies on this type of ships. Same in RTW but ratio is different because differents demands on cruisers/destroyers/ASW vessels CVL: in history you need them for hard work, transport of planes to fleet carriers, to islands, protect support forces that are not supposed to be primary under attack, commencing trade protection etc. And there is huge difference to RTW2. Almost nothing of this is simulated in RTW2 and only protection of invasion force etc. could be seen in RTW but in RTW you have no lack of fleets carriers on strategic layer so why not even this task to be done by fleeet carrier. So for player CVL has very little use on large fleets (probably could be different in small fleets as budget is limited). But AI builds them which means player has advantage as player just builds CVs and they are more effective in carrier battles. CV: In history there were several things, treaty limitations, new weapon platform, even Japanese Navy did not focus only on CVs. In RTW we have handsight allowing us heavily focus on carriers and it brings unbalance.
Suggestion: May be it can be good to limit number of carriers (or better tonnage) by Board in similar way how its is done fort the first carrier needed 8x8" guns to simulate scepticism of Admirals. Ratio (CV tonnage, total tonnage of ships) could depend on historical view of nations, something changed by random and total value of colonial possession actual vs. at start of game. It will give more realistic feelings and player will not have such huge advantage.
|
|
|
Post by rodentnavy on Jun 14, 2019 3:40:57 GMT -6
One of the issues with the lack of cruisers especially CL is the random light cruiser engagement ...sorry I mean random battle selector's preference for light cruiser actions, which is even more exaggerated as those are the ones the AI does not tend to decline. That results in a players light cruisers becoming a liability as you see them either scuttling away from something much bigger and meaner or only collecting a handful of VP as they blow a hapless pair of corvettes out of the water.
|
|
|
Post by wknehring on Jun 18, 2019 4:46:43 GMT -6
There is something I would like to add to this issue, I don´t know if it is worth to use a new thread (and has to do with the "top heavy" building behavior of the AI):
In a yesterday´s game with the US (1900, 100% research, varied tech, historical budget) I had 13 prestige hits!!! during 22 months (perhaps this goes on, Idk- I stopped playing this game, because this is annyoing AF!), because "president is upset we have the lowest CA/BC tonnage"
Here the almanach:
(sorry for that quality- something went wrong. But I guess you can see all clearly)
My budget in peace time was 19kk higher than GB! But never mind- if they build CA and BC like hell, all is OK.
But take Italy for example- they have half the peace time budget of mine and have nearly the same building programme in capital ships and CA like mine. How is this possible? What about Japan? They never could build such an amount of capital ships beside their CAs!
OK, my number of CL is nearly double the amount of other navies (except France), but to be fair- there are 8 cruisers (you see that Juneau-class?) with 4500ts each, that were quiet cheap to build. So there were no large funds spent into them and I had a quiet homogenous building programme.
If Germany, GB and France can handle my output on capital ships, it is OK imo. If than my CA-number sucks or any other type of ship, it is OK. But NEVER against Italy, Japan or Russia!
And this is an early game screen shot- wait untill there is some kind of WNTish treaty in the 30s- than these crazy buggers start to built another 20-30 crapy CAs in addition, while I try to build some kind of strong ships. This behavior is weird. And comparing this with my budgets with 1920 Germany, I doubt there are enough funds to build such programmes.
And than it would be (or should be) nice, if Mr President/The Kaiser/The Führer/The Duce/The Pope/whoever calms down and waits untill the answering building programme to his first bollocking has finished! Sorry, but a CA needs about 24 months to build. An early BC about 33 months even with the US! So, the **** wait untill they have finished! I would like that those answering building programmes would be taken into account for such events! If there are 2-3 hits in a row untill the ship-development has finished, all is OK (I could have been earlier and faster). But if there were 4 BC building (they only have 2 15" triple turrets, because the additional centre line turrets were missing!) and 4 new CA were commissioned a year earlier and your funds are almost red and there is the need of some first dreadnoughts (before Mr whoever starts to get upset we have none), than they should calm down!
Sorry guys, but this is a fun killer! I had 2 smaller wars and was over 40 prestige and now it is at 28! In addition my unrest level was at 6! becasue I spent all my money in ships and derailed all social programmes! The only reason why it is at 0 is that war against France (next thing to mention- in RTW1 normally the value decreased about 4 points at the start of the war, with a further decrease if you win battles and defeat the enemy in a few months. After 18 months of war the value tends to raise again). I was so hyped about RTW2, but after a few games (I only have one complete playthrough with the Kriegsmarine untill 1955) there were so many issues the fun is dropping significantly.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 18, 2019 5:38:50 GMT -6
AI is excellent in managing its fleet (RF/MB).
You have in construction 4 battleship per 35000 tons for 14.5M. So 1 battleship 35000 tons costs you 3.6M
Japan has in construction:
- 3 battleships per 27000 tons - about 2.8 per ship = 8.4M less 10 % (Japan undeveloped) = 7.6 M
- 2 battlecruisers per 29000 tons - about 2.9 per ship = 5.8 less 10 % = 5.3 TOTAL: 12.9 M
Yearly budge 274 M , monthly budget 22.8 M - research (AI sometimes do not use all 12 %) so we take 8 % = 1.8M - construction 12.9 Remaining: 8.1 M You are in war and have 18.7 M with similar fleet. So they can have half of fleet mothballed, half peace time: 18.7 / 2 = 9.35M half fleet wartime ==> 9.35 / 1.5 = 6.2 on active duty half fleet ==> 9.35 /1.5 * 0.2 = 1.25M mothball
So there can still be up to about 2M remaining money per month, but more likely about zero budget.
Conclusion: If Japan maximalize budget they can even be in positive.
I cannot see anything strange except numbers of CAs. Question is how you manage peacetime budget.
Comparsion of tonnage per 1 ship of CA: USA (you) - 14000 tons Germany - 11300 tons UK - 13200 tons France - 11450 tons Russia - 11800 tons Japan - 11800 tons Italy - 11800 tons
I cannot see speed of your ship but usually player design faster ship, so if you just compare CAs you are spending probably 20-35 % more on construction costs and maintenance costs per 1 armoured cruiser. It is quite similar on pre-drednoughts, destroyers etc., only protected cruisers are quite comparable. All these things has some effect. On top of if you run training 5.5 M (how long?).
In my game playing France, UK and USA has twice larger fleet than my, rest of nations are behind, all quite reasonable.
So question to be raised is how can you improved your fleet management as to have only 4 battlecruisers at end of 1914 as USA seems quite bad situation. On opposite numbers on other nations is quite resonable except too much ACs. (Was there any treaty? Did you start ACs construction in higher numbers before AI?)
|
|
|
Post by alsadius on Jun 18, 2019 5:40:48 GMT -6
Your image doesn't show up at all for me, FWIW.
|
|
|
Post by wknehring on Jun 18, 2019 8:50:58 GMT -6
AI is excellent in managing its fleet (RF/MB).
You have in construction 4 battleship per 35000 tons for 14.5M. So 1 battleship 35000 tons costs you 3.6M
Japan has in construction:
- 3 battleships per 27000 tons - about 2.8 per ship = 8.4M less 10 % (Japan undeveloped) = 7.6 M
- 2 battlecruisers per 29000 tons - about 2.9 per ship = 5.8 less 10 % = 5.3 TOTAL: 12.9 M
Yearly budge 274 M , monthly budget 22.8 M - research (AI sometimes do not use all 12 %) so we take 8 % = 1.8M - construction 12.9 Remaining: 8.1 M You are in war and have 18.7 M with similar fleet. So they can have half of fleet mothballed, half peace time: 18.7 / 2 = 9.35M half fleet wartime ==> 9.35 / 1.5 = 6.2 on active duty half fleet ==> 9.35 /1.5 * 0.2 = 1.25M mothball
So there can still be up to about 2M remaining money per month, but more likely about zero budget.
Conclusion: If Japan maximalize budget they can even be in positive.
I cannot see anything strange except numbers of CAs. Question is how you manage peacetime budget.
Comparsion of tonnage per 1 ship of CA: USA (you) - 14000 tons Germany - 11300 tons UK - 13200 tons France - 11450 tons Russia - 11800 tons Japan - 11800 tons Italy - 11800 tons
I cannot see speed of your ship but usually player design faster ship, so if you just compare CAs you are spending probably 20-35 % more on construction costs and maintenance costs per 1 armoured cruiser. It is quite similar on pre-drednoughts, destroyers etc., only protected cruisers are quite comparable. All these things has some effect. On top of if you run training 5.5 M (how long?).
In my game playing France, UK and USA has twice larger fleet than my, rest of nations are behind, all quite reasonable.
So question to be raised is how can you improved your fleet management as to have only 4 battlecruisers at end of 1914 as USA seems quite bad situation. On opposite numbers on other nations is quite resonable except too much ACs. (Was there any treaty? Did you start ACs construction in higher numbers before AI?)
My Legacy-CA 23 knots (were 6, 2 were sunk) My Seattle-Class 21 knots (did not reach its design speed of 22 knots- was a "light BC" with 2x2 12") My Northampton-Class 27 knots (3x3 9")
All 3 cost-intensive from their perspective.
Only having 4 BC at End 1912 was the thing with my "research luck". And those things only have 2 triple turrets 15" and had 33 months construkction time- I would say it is OK to start in 1908/09 building your first BB/BC. Only my BBs are a bit late, because I didn´t want to build some 3 double-turret things. And than I had 4 center line turrets before I had wing turrets. So some kind of SMS Kaiser-style I was not able to build. And for some additional defence- I had 5 events with "naval secretary wishes additional ships" or "some folks collected money"- I had to build 21 DD, 21 subs, 2 additional BB/BC, 3 BB, 8 CL/CA- in 14 years of game. In RTW1 I normally had 50kk bugs for 2 BB/BC every 4-5 games and 2-3 building-events in 50 years (mostly DDs and subs).
You are right with my micromanagement, I guess I could built at least 3-4 CA more (maybe an entire new class- but than I would have 18 CA- in case I didn´t lose 2 in that war against Russia), when starting mothballing several ships. But normally I tend to send ships to reserve status, instead of mothballing them (only future-converted ships and some older trade protectors will be mothballed). And than I have some DD flotillas in each sea area with own possesions and than some cruisers on FS. Perhaps I have to calculate mor eaccurate my foreign tonnage and work much more via foreign station and only a hand full of CL/CA. Everything will be reserved and only a few key-ships stay in active status. And than what you said- training- normally I start training and don´t stop that untill the end.
Let´s say it is my own fault, that I have such few CA/BC- this is totally clear- but the amount of prestige hits kills any fun. And this happened a few times in a few games. Now I counted the events. I would say one hit each years would be enough.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 18, 2019 8:58:30 GMT -6
The prestige is certainly strange, if you can describe it in bug fórum to show the issue.
But may be not completely as if you are unwilling proceed what politicans want and ignore them...
|
|
|
Post by dougphresh on Jun 18, 2019 9:54:08 GMT -6
I'd like to have more uses for KE and DD, and as others have said make sure that generally there are uses for ships beside major surface combatants.
|
|
jma286
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by jma286 on Jun 18, 2019 10:42:55 GMT -6
In my current France game the CL numbers definitely are lacking for everyone besides me, UK and US. Do countries without colonies simply ignore CLs?
|
|
|
Post by alsadius on Jun 18, 2019 10:48:36 GMT -6
I'd like to have more uses for KE and DD, and as others have said make sure that generally there are uses for ships beside major surface combatants. DDs are quite useful. I build them by the dozens, and they spawn into any battle I fight in fairly large numbers - a battle where I have one CL there'll usually be ~5 DD in escort, and a fleet battle will usually have 20-30 of them (VL fleet size, 70+ DD in total fleet, about 60 assigned to active duty and not TP/FS). I feel like the game does this very well. And torpedo-heavy DDs are useful in fleet fights, whether the enemy has escorts or not, so they don't feel wasteful either.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 18, 2019 11:02:03 GMT -6
In my current France game the CL numbers definitely are lacking for everyone besides me, UK and US. Do countries without colonies simply ignore CLs? It could be viable strategy. You do not need many cruisers for fleet duty and if you have no colonies, you can use funds for capital ships and destroyers.
|
|
|
Post by dougphresh on Jun 18, 2019 12:35:05 GMT -6
I'd like to have more uses for KE and DD, and as others have said make sure that generally there are uses for ships beside major surface combatants. DDs are quite useful. I build them by the dozens, and they spawn into any battle I fight in fairly large numbers - a battle where I have one CL there'll usually be ~5 DD in escort, and a fleet battle will usually have 20-30 of them (VL fleet size, 70+ DD in total fleet, about 60 assigned to active duty and not TP/FS). I feel like the game does this very well. And torpedo-heavy DDs are useful in fleet fights, whether the enemy has escorts or not, so they don't feel wasteful either. Sorry, I meant outside of battle.
|
|