Post by mycophobia on Jun 18, 2019 12:56:29 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.
I think the problem is that the game does tend to present prestige as kind of a "score" for the player, while at the same time does not always tie its accumulation to success. (Playing as France I got a lot of bull from my government telling to build 12 cruiser after asking 15 submarine after asking for 5 bb) Imo its best if you treat prestige as a resource like funding, bargaining chips and nothing more. I do wish the game system can be better done to reflect this if they haven't already (High prestige should help skew RNG events that depends on your input in your favour for example).
