Let's talk Tech

[jwsmith26]

I play a pretty aggressive game in which I look to win by beating the enemy fleets in battle. Many other players adopt far different strategies than my own. Some players like to avoid battles and win using submarines and raiders. Other players have pursued a strategy of building smaller ships, winning cruiser and destroyer battles while avoiding battleship battles. I believe I read one player describe how he had managed to go through the entire game without fighting a single war.

Given the way that I personally play, the right technology investments are critical to success. That is almost certainly the case for every strategy, though different technologies would probably be required for other strategies. I'm interested in hearing about what technologies players invest in to support their particular strategy.

For my strategy to succeed, I need tough battleships that can survive numerous heavy gunfire hits and as well as a torpedo hit or two. They need to be at least fast enough to keep up with enemy ships running from the fight. I also need many destroyers that are equipped with as many torpedoes as they can carry, even if this means sacrificing some gunfire and speed. My need for cruisers is limited. They serve as scouts for the fleet but once the enemy is located they are relegated to the outskirts of the battle so two or three are sufficient for my needs. For my cruisers speed is critical, firepower less so. Submarines are just a "nice to have" for me.

To support these goals I invest in the following techs, listed in order of importance (to my strategy).

Fire Control
Allows improved fire control systems to be installed, provides other incremental fire control improvements
 
This is absolutely critical. As a general rule I've found that installing improved fire control (e.g. going from Central Firing to Director) will usually improve your hit percentage by between 50% and 100% over the previous version of fire control. I could be off on those percentages but the improvement is pretty darn impressive. Whenever possible I will avoid starting a new war until one of these dramatic technological advances occur. I will then try to re-equip my entire fleet (much easier when at peace) and once that's accomplished I'll look to start a war with a nation that is not so equipped. (Training can also provide significant improvements in hit ratio.) I would imagine that for a player not interested in fighting battles this tech would provide little value and his limited investment capital would be better spent elsewhere.

Ship Design
Grants ability to build dreadnoughts and battle cruisers, gives improvements in turret use and arrangement, lowers equipment weight

This tech is almost as important as Fire Control for me. You need this tech to start building Dreadnoughts and Battle Cruisers. I need those ships for my strategy to work and I need them sooner than any other player if possible (I'm almost always the first out of the gate with these ship types). This tech also allows you to make improvements in the arrangement and number of main gun turrets allowed. These improvements are crucial to make capital ships powerful. I can't imagine not investing in this tech, but if you are actively avoiding fleet encounters it may not make sense to invest here.

Light Forces and Torpedo Warfare
Grants improvements in displacement and armament for destroyers and armament for cruisers

This tech is pretty important to my strategy because I use my light forces to control the flow of battles. I often use destroyer attacks to cut the enemy battle line, isolating a small section of the enemy force that I can then attack with my full battle line. My destroyers also pack major dangers for enemy battleships - my mid to late game destroyers are often armed with 12 to 15 torpedoes. If you don't plan to fight many battles this tech may not be important to you.

Torpedo Technology
Provides improvements in range and speed of torpedoes

This tech goes hand in hand with the above technology. I want my torpedoes to be as dangerous and as long-winded as possible. I don't know if this technology has an impact on submarine warfare but I imagine it does. (does anyone know if it affect sub warfare?)

Naval Guns
Allows installation of bigger and/or more effective guns

Come on, who doesn't want bigger and better guns. This one's a no-brainer. However, I do back off on this tech, dropping it to "Low", after I've researched 16" guns.

Subdivision and Damage Control
Allows installation of improved anti-torpedo systems, provides incremental damage control improvements

Given my stated goal of achieving tough capital ships, this tech is pretty obviously important. Investing here is a long-game strategy. The gains achieved are more like a slow trickle rather than the dramatic jumps achieved with Fire Control, but the improvements in ship survivability over the long haul can be quite significant. Again this is a tech that primarily benefits an aggressive battle oriented strategy.

Fleet Tactics
Allows advanced fleet formations, improves control during battle (signalling), improves use of minefields, improves intelligence on enemy

The benefits derived from fleet tactics are primarily flexibility of command in battle. Most of the improvements derived from this tech are relatively minor adjustments to how fleets are controlled and behave. However, the ability to have two flagships (one for the main body and one for a scouting force) is a major benefit in battle. Later improvements assist in fire control during battles. This tech is pretty valuable if you fight a lot of battles, especially battleship or fleet engagements but would be of little value if your are fighting a primarily economic war.

Weapons techs - AP Projectiles, Explosive Shells, Turrets and Gun Mountings
Improve lethality of weaponry, AP Projectiles improve armor penetration, Explosive shells improve the damage inflicted, and Turrets tech generally improve the rate of fire but is also required to build triple or quadruple turrets

While these techs look like they'd be right up my ally, I've never invested heavily in them because of the incremental nature of their improvements. I generally leave them set at medium and allow the benefits to slowly accrue. However, until this writing I had never really realized that triple turrets (a great firepower improvement over double turrets) were obtained via this tech. Going forward I may increase investment in this tech, at least until I get triple turrets.

Hardware techs - Machinery Development, Armor Development, Hull Construction
Incremental reduction of weight for these ship components

These techs all reduce the weight of their respective components. This is, of course, very welcome. This basically means you will be able to jam more stuff into the same ship tonnage. As I say, very welcome, but not sufficiently game changing to cause me to invest heavily in these techs. I generally leave them at medium for the duration.

ASW technology
Incremental increase in ASW effectiveness

As above, improvements to ASW ability is welcome but hardly critical. Now, it might be critical if playing against a human player that was likely to build a powerful submarine fleet, but that is just not a strategy that the AI employs, so this tech is very low on my list of priorities. In fact, it is the tech most likely to be reduced to "Low" at the beginning of the game and might stay in that realm for the duration.

Submarines
Grant ability to build Coastal, medium Range and mine-laying submarines, Incremental improvements to submarine reliability

This tech is another largely incremental tech. Each improvement is either the ability to build a new type of submarine or a 5% increase in submarine reliability. If you're going for a "guerre de course" strategy the is probably one of the most important techs to invest in. If not, then you can leave it at medium. Given my priorities it is often reduced to "Low" for much of the game.

---
I do have a question for the group. I noticed that that both the "Ship Design" and "Turrets and Gun Mountings" tech each have a technology event that "Enables" triple (and quadruple) turrets. Does anyone know if both of these tech improvements are required to actually build triple turrets? Or is it sufficient to achieve one of these techs to enable triple turrets?

Well there you go, that's my take on what techs do what and how important each one is, in my (highly biased) opinion. I would love to hear how others approach this aspect of the game.

[chaosblade]

Personally, I'd also add AP tech, sure it is incremental, but it does allow my older BBs, BC CA and even Bs to remain competitive for a while. I think it is this tech that modifies the penetration potential of guns we see in the design screen, if so, it is critical as well.

[jwsmith26]

Chaosblade, I hadn't considered that connection. I was assuming that the increase in gun penetration and range just happened as part of the game. If you're correct then that tech becomes pretty important.

----

OK, I just ran some tests. You are absolutely correct that any increase in penetration is a result of advances in AP Projectiles. It looks like most increases in range are the result of tech improvements in Fire Control coming from messages that say, "Gradual national accuracy improvement". 

[trenton59]

I tend to prioritize machinery, mostly to allow for lighter, cheaper CA's and BC's without sacrificing capability, as the engines tend to be up to 30% of the tonnage of these types when I build them.

[director]

I too like a 'fighting navy' but if I have to tackle someone (or someones) bigger than I am, then I go with a 'subs and AMC' strategy. It's fairly easy to move back and forth between the two as long as you don't invest too heavily in AMCs.

The 'Naval Guns' category is a priority for me early on but I drop it once I get a good 14" or 15" weapon. I've begun to move away from 8 big guns toward 9-12 smaller ones - even 12" will give your enemy a bad day if your ship has 12 or more of them.

[tbr]

Yes, I suspect there is a "critical" chance that is practically independent from calibre but rather tied to "class" of calibre (large, medium, small). I get vastly better results with 11inch than with 10inch but 12inch and 13inch bring almost no improvement.

[mrnkovac]

I play the game with same attitude as original poster. Even if I play A-H, the nation I play most often, I can win a war against nations like France, Italy or Russia accepting fleet engagements if circumstances are good (in last game in war against France I had 2 BCs and France best ship was semidreadnought).

The analysis is very good, but i have a note - prioritizing everything means prioritizing nothing. If i set 2/3 of research areas on high, it doesnt make significant effect to any area. Thats why i would set more area to medium and low priority.

I set to high: Fire control, Ship design, Turrets and gun mountings, AP projectiles and Naval guns
Low: Submarines, ASW technology, Machinery development, Armour development and Hull construction.
Rest i leave with medium priority.

I didnt switch settings during game, but i have to admit it makes sense to decrease Naval guns after you research 14 or 15 inchers of 0 quality to medium or low priority.

I keep building ships with 8-9 bigger guns even in later stages, i feel 12inchers lack punch when fighting at long distances even after improvements in AP projectiles.

[JagdFlanker]

i used to pick half the tech and put it on high, but like mrnkovac says prioritizing everything means prioritizing nothing

now i put fire control and torp tech on high, the rest normal - i figure the ultimate priority in the game is to hit what you fire at and sink what you hit, and everything else is secondary

[chz]

To a point. Early on, I think Ship Design is very important. Those pre-dreads aren't much more than maintenance-heavy colonial boats once the real BBs start to appear. Though oddly enough, if you can hang on to them for a *very* long time and refit them with oil machinery and secondary directors, they become pretty nasty little pieces of work. I normally end up with a few 22kt semi-dreads with 16 9in guns in twin turrets as secondaries just before proper BBs appear and they're just *evil* if they hang around long enough to be refitted with directors and new engines for 25kts.

[kamuka]

Things I put to high on game startup, if i want to go with big BBs for fleet battles.

Ship design: Get the Dreadnoughts out faster. Will lower once I can build ABXY or ABL ships. Depending on mood.
Subdivision and damage control: Almost all of my capital ship sinkings (espacially early on) involve being hit by torpedos. I lower priority on this, once I have decent torp protection.
Torpedo technology: Flip side of the point above. Might also include Light forces for more powerful DDs.
Turrets and gun mountings: Tripple and quadruple turrets are huge weight savers. Usually lower it once I have improved tripple turrets.
Fire control: Early hit rates are brutally low. This is hugely important.
Naval guns: Depending on which nation I play. Usually want to go up to 15" or so.
Machinery: Only if I play a nation with oil and lower it once I have oil firing.

And most importantly: Push the increase dock size button every year until you can build 40k ton ships.


Just played a game until 1942, and here's a list of (hopefully) every tech in the game.

pastebin.com/x3krmL1c

[jwsmith26]

I think that the main thing preventing pre-dreads from standing in later lines of battle is their lack of speed. The B's that most navies start with have speeds ranging from 17 to 19 and once I've started producing dreadnoughts they always fall far behind when the action gets heated.

When I build pre-dreadnoughts I try to build them to last into the teens at least, so I give them 22 knots, heavier decks for when gunfire ranges increase, as well as heavier side armor. If possible I also make them into semi-dreadnoughts by giving them heavy secondaries. Here's a typical example (though the deck armor is a bit suspect):


Pre-dreadnoughts are horribly vulnerable to torpedoes, so the further away from the enemy line you can operate the better. Once you start developing better fire control you you can maintain effective fire at a distance and reduce the danger from torpedoes. However, this increases the danger from plunging fire so the original set of pre-dreadnoughts with which most navies start, with their thin deck armor, become even more vulnerable. But if you give the pre-dreadnoughts decent armor and decent speed I think they can find a place in the line.

While they have only half or less main guns compared to dreadnoughts they also cost half as much or less to maintain. Once dreadnoughts arrive these older ships are typically placed well back in the battle line by the AI so they tend not to be targeted excessively by the enemy. With upgrades to AP projectiles and Fire Control I believe effectively configured pre-dreadnoughts can provide value in the line commensurate with their expense even after the dreadnoughts arrive.

Of course they also make excellent colonial guards.

[jwsmith26]

Kamuka, excellent list of techs. Thanks for providing this.

[mrnkovac]

I accept that around 1908-10 all predreadnaughts and semidreadnaughts are obsolete regardless the size of primary/secondary guns and speed. Jwsmith, your example Aleksandr has also this flaws:
- only half of secondary 11inch guns can fire on target (unless you have enemy ships on both sides  )
- armor of 11inch guns is very poor, even secondary guns of enemy capital ships and cruisers guns can take these guns out of action,
- secondary guns have accuracy penalty,
- if the ship fires its primary and secondary guns on the same target (in your case 12 inch guns and 11 inch guns), the accuracy penalty for more ships firing on the same target applies.

I wouldnt like to have such ship in the battleline in middle teens. Despite the ship is relatively big (18k tons) its obsolete, i would prefer to have 25kts BC with 11 inch guns and moderate armour of the same tonnage.

I admit there is a big dilema what to design around 1904-6. I usually build some semidreadnaughts around 14-15k tons, with 8-9 inch secondary and 19-20 kts after medium wing turrets are researched. I avoid building BBs/BCs with 3 centerline turrets and build ships which have broadside of at least 8 heavy guns. That means i have around 2 years nothing to built so i concentrate on CLs/DDs/docks/forts/improving bases/research/savings in this period.

I used to scrap Bs around 1915, now (if i play small/medium fleet) i tend to keep semidreadnoughts mothballed as it is really cheap. When war breaks out, i send them with support forces to colonial areas with hope that my local superiority will result into invasion. I always hope they avoid serious surface action.

[director]

I don't think prioritizing torpedoes is sufficient - you need to prioritize light forces and get to 900 to 1100-ton DDs with at least double torpedo tubes.

[jwsmith26]

mrnkovac, nice critique. I would take a nice fast BC over the fat old Aleksandr any day :-).

This type of ship certainly has a number of flaws (don't they all), most of which are a result of it being a semi-dreadnought with those big, ugly 11" secondaries.

I don't find the flaws you mention to be much of an issue for these ships in battle. Their primary and secondary guns hit at about the same percentage as other ships of the line. I'm not denying that these negative effects exist, just that I don't find them to be significant enough to not build semi-dreadnoughts. You must feel the same because you mention that you also build semi-dreadnoughts but at 14,000 tons rather than 18,000. It seems that those same flaws must certainly exist in your semi-dreadnoughts, yet we both build them.

I think every ship in the game is a product of its moment in time, what enemies you're facing, what techs you possess. When you're looking at the meagre options available in 1903 a semi-dreadnought can look pretty dang sweet even if you know it has plenty of warts.

I don't really like building Bs at all, but you've got to keep up with your neighbors. It's just that, if I have to build them, I prefer building Bs that can avoid obsolescence a bit longer.