|
|
Post by pratapon51 on May 24, 2024 3:56:31 GMT -6
As the title says, this is a newer feature in 1.00.46 stable where the player (I am presuming this does not apply to AI nations, not that they care about max docksize) must utilize at least 25% of max shipbuilding capacity or risk downsizing, losing both shipbuilding capacity and max tonnage. Being in the <25% state also appears to disable private shipbuilding expansion events.
I understand that this feature was likely added in to curb super-aggressive dockmaxing, but these events feel like another player-punitive addition that detract from the overall experience, and while the reduction of maximum capacity might make sense, the max. ship size going down causes me to imagine the large slipways and drydocks my navy sponsored magically shrinking. It's also an extra malus for any player who likes the occasional Spain or China campaign.
I have a few ideas on how to soften the blow of this feature....
1.) Reduce the base 25% threshold to 10-15%.
a.) Could also be related to tech-year; orders for civilian vessels are becoming larger and more numerous + better manufacturing practices.
b.) Include ships under rebuild for either full or partial tonnage.
2.) Divorce maximum tonnage from max shipbuilding capacity. Can increase one, the other, or both at once for two separate (though smaller) costs. Max ship size doesn't shrink, shipbuilding max does.
|
|
|
|
Post by krawa on May 31, 2024 7:56:49 GMT -6
I concur that dockyard shrinkage is strange, but pushing dockyard size to unrealistic levels is too easy and too cheap for the player. Maybe the better way would be to exponentially increase the cost for expanding the dockyards if the building capacity is under utilized.
And as far as Spain and China are concerned, this would give those countries a stronger incentive to order large ships in foreign yards than expand their own shipping industry to unsustainable levels.
|
|
|
|
Post by golingarf on Jun 12, 2024 16:08:38 GMT -6
I just want to register that I was going to take up this game again after reading about the Admiral Update, and then learning about this made me not want to.
There is enough micromanagement already. A requirement to build 25% of your capacity at all times disrupts the whole flow of the game and sounds like a hair-pulling bad time. (It also severely punishes building in foreign yards.)
I hope you'll consider just killing this feature.
The natural solution was so much simpler: prohibit manually expanding docks, which the AI doesn't do anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by ecrivain on Jun 14, 2024 6:32:59 GMT -6
I just want to register that I was going to take up this game again after reading about the Admiral Update, and then learning about this made me not want to. There is enough micromanagement already. A requirement to build 25% of your capacity at all times disrupts the whole flow of the game and sounds like a hair-pulling bad time. (It also severely punishes building in foreign yards.) It's definitely not at all times. I've had it pop up exactly once, and I'm constantly building less than 25% of my tonnage. |
|
|
|
Post by golingarf on Jun 14, 2024 7:39:10 GMT -6
I just want to register that I was going to take up this game again after reading about the Admiral Update, and then learning about this made me not want to. There is enough micromanagement already. A requirement to build 25% of your capacity at all times disrupts the whole flow of the game and sounds like a hair-pulling bad time. (It also severely punishes building in foreign yards.) It's definitely not at all times. I've had it pop up exactly once, and I'm constantly building less than 25% of my tonnage. The point is that if the risk of it happening is present whenever you are under 25%, you are incentivized to keep building over 25% at all times. |
|
|
|
Post by ecrivain on Jun 14, 2024 9:33:12 GMT -6
It's definitely not at all times. I've had it pop up exactly once, and I'm constantly building less than 25% of my tonnage. The point is that if the risk of it happening is present whenever you are under 25%, you are incentivized to keep building over 25% at all times. Yeah? But like... You are incentivized to always be building because the game is about building ships (amongst other things).
I'm reporting that in my latest 1890-1960 playthrough it has hardly affected me, in the hopes that it might lead to less fearmongering.
|
|
|
|
Post by golingarf on Jun 14, 2024 10:11:02 GMT -6
The point is that if the risk of it happening is present whenever you are under 25%, you are incentivized to keep building over 25% at all times. Yeah? But like... You are incentivized to always be building because the game is about building ships (amongst other things).
I'm reporting that in my latest 1890-1960 playthrough it has hardly affected me, in the hopes that it might lead to less fearmongering.
I don't feel that way. I'm already calculating so many things when planning what to build. Having to think about hitting this arbitrary number, I get tense in my neck just thinking about it. |
|
|
|
Post by ecrivain on Jun 14, 2024 11:15:41 GMT -6
Yeah? But like... You are incentivized to always be building because the game is about building ships (amongst other things).
I'm reporting that in my latest 1890-1960 playthrough it has hardly affected me, in the hopes that it might lead to less fearmongering.
I don't feel that way. I'm already calculating so many things when planning what to build. Having to think about hitting this arbitrary number, I get tense in my neck just thinking about it. You don't have to worry about hitting that number, is my point. It's barely a concern. |
|
|
|
Post by golingarf on Jun 14, 2024 12:10:36 GMT -6
I don't feel that way. I'm already calculating so many things when planning what to build. Having to think about hitting this arbitrary number, I get tense in my neck just thinking about it. You don't have to worry about hitting that number, is my point. It's barely a concern. I think this might just be a difference in philosophy. I can't stand playing a game where I have so little understanding of the rules and will not even get more than minimal cryptic feedback about how things I did affected the outcome. With this issue, even if it's a "small" issue in the sense that the event won't happen often, it will be on my mind that I might not be playing correctly, and I will never find out whether that's true. So I'm going to try to hit the number. Except no, I'm probably not, because all these unwritten details make me not want to play at all. |
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Jun 14, 2024 14:23:38 GMT -6
The point is that if the risk of it happening is present whenever you are under 25%, you are incentivized to keep building over 25% at all times. Yeah? But like... You are incentivized to always be building because the game is about building ships (amongst other things).
I'm reporting that in my latest 1890-1960 playthrough it has hardly affected me, in the hopes that it might lead to less fearmongering.
Try playing one of the smaller nations in a 1935 start...China, for example, can barely afford the 4 KEs it needs to meet it's minimum TP requirements in a Very Small size game. They have a 45,000t max size dockyard, so you can't build anywhere near 25% capacity which results in a constant cycle of messages followed by reduced shipyard capacity. Edit: I assume each month a value is increased by 1 if tonnage is below 25% of max, which is then reset to 0 when the tonnage exceeds 25%. I propose the check is made annually in April. If value<12, nothing happens If value>12 (or value=12), a warning is issued If value>24 (or value=24), dockyard capacity is reduced. I'd also propose Mothballing rather than deleting the yards. Mothballed yards can be put back into use after 3-6 months operating at a minimum of 50% of current (i.e. reduced) capacity. |
|
|
|
Post by ecrivain on Jun 14, 2024 17:16:12 GMT -6
Yeah? But like... You are incentivized to always be building because the game is about building ships (amongst other things).
I'm reporting that in my latest 1890-1960 playthrough it has hardly affected me, in the hopes that it might lead to less fearmongering.
Try playing one of the smaller nations in a 1935 start. Oh, yeah, to be fair I don't play anything under super large |
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Jun 14, 2024 21:28:44 GMT -6
The other thing is, for an 1890 start the biggest dockyard is 15,000t so it's much easier to reach the 25% value and you can control the rate of expansion better.
|
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Jun 15, 2024 8:52:57 GMT -6
Thanks for the feedback, we appreciate it. We will take a second look at this to see how it might be improved.
|
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Jun 20, 2024 20:22:37 GMT -6
I also found this kinda hard to deal with.
My view is more that with it based on potential capacity it was the max capacity too large.
If I can build 40,000 ton warship it lists the possible capacity at like 320,000 tons. No waaaaaaay does even the USA have the budget to keep make let alone keep making that many.
I get the idea of trimming back with the less than 25% capacity but the capacity is waaay to high. Ive not run numbers on what target to suggest as surely you could want 4 of your biggest possible ships being built at a time. Which would be like 160,000 tons. Plus a few others in cycle like DD and TP. So maybe max capacity should be around x5 your build size not the x8 - x10 whatever it is now.
|
|
