Campaign Logistics - Gun sizes.

[Reaper Jack]

What sort of logistics will we see, or do you want to see, regarding gun caliber in the campaign? 

In real life this was a huge headache for the varying admiralties, with a severe reluctance to move away from guns of certain sizes because the infrastructure to build both the weapons, their shells, and their replacement parts was already in place. This is most notable with the French in the Interwar period, where some of their head naval staff were already complaining about having to supply 3 different ammo types to their capital ships (for the old dreadnoughts, the Dunkerques and the Richelieus respectively) and as such resisted upgunning the new Alsace designs to the 406mm variant that was proposed. 

In other navies, such as the Kriegsmarine, the 150mm gun present on any German ship fired the same shell, with that particular gun being shared between at least six different classes (Bismarck, Scharnhorst, Deutschland, Leipzig, K Class and the 1936A Mob DD's) which was in part due to keeping their supply system as simple as possible. How will this be simulated in the campaign? I would very much like to see this as it was a major reason for secondary batteries in particular as to why they rarely exceeded 152mm guns, as there is little point in designing, building, and supplying a new weapon system that will only see service on a handful of mounts on one or two ships of the same class, it's simply not efficient. 

[SiWi]

my guess is that at release the campaign will simply "refill ammo" have for all types.

Partly to encourage interesting designs, partly because its technical easier to do.

 

Should they deiced to depict it, one method would be simply the upkeep cost from a fleet.

If you introduce new calibers into the fleet, the upkeep cost of bases rises (simulating the problem of having to store more shells). As long a Base is supplied, it would refill all ammo types, without micromanagment.

 

Another method would be to make the player ensure that each ammo type is present in the base he uses, from "hand".

Meaning that you maybe only supply your 13inch shells to your home ports, where your most advance units and saving the money in other bases (of course you would run into the problems, once you would need to move them to the other bases because war broke out or the ships got obsolet).

[Reaper Jack]

Just now, SiWi said:

my guess is that at release the campaign will simply "refill ammo" have for all types.

Partly to encourage interesting designs, partly because its technical easier to do.

 

Should they deiced to depict it, one method would be simply the upkeep cost from a fleet.

If you introduce new calibers into the fleet, the upkeep cost of bases rises (simulating the problem of having to store more shells). As long a Base is supplied, it would refill all ammo types, without micromanagment.

 

Another method would be to make the player ensure that each ammo type is present in the base he uses, from "hand".

Meaning that you maybe only supply your 13inch shells to your home ports, where your most advance units and saving the money in other bases (of course you would run into the problems, once you would need to move them to the other bases because war broke out or the ships got obsolet).

There are a number of ways to handle the supply side, but the real problem is your industry. Going back to the French, the reason the Richelieus took so long to build was because they had to dredge entirely new ports and drydocks to hold them, and they had to build entirely new factories to make the new 380mm guns as there was no infrastructure for them, that tooling process alone is costly and time consuming. Once it is set up the costs go down, but getting it set up is a pain, hence why navies stuck to one caliber as much as they could. Interwar Germany faced the same problem with Krupp very often modifying existing artillery for both naval and land units (The FlaK 88 is a perfect example of this, the original version is of WW1 vintage) so retooling was as easy as possible to produce the new weapons. 

[SiWi]

Well my understanding/assumptions is that every port will have a infrastructure value, telling you how much displacement they can take and every dock how large they can build.

Mainly because RTW seems to be doing it this way.

[Skoggatt]

Another way to limit the number of gun calibers you choose to use would be to have some sort of system where you have to develop gun models before putting them on ships. So if you want 12" guns on your next BB, you have to spend money and time developing a 12" gun. It would make sense if better versions of a given caliber of gun were developed from earlier ones faster and cheaper, funneling the player towards investing in a few calibers of weapons at a time. Thus most of your guns might have either 12", 6", or 4" guns with a few outliers, just as in real fleets.

[Reaper Jack]

9 minutes ago, Skoggatt said:

Another way to limit the number of gun calibers you choose to use would be to have some sort of system where you have to develop gun models before putting them on ships. So if you want 12" guns on your next BB, you have to spend money and time developing a 12" gun. It would make sense if better versions of a given caliber of gun were developed from earlier ones faster and cheaper, funneling the player towards investing in a few calibers of weapons at a time. Thus most of your guns might have either 12", 6", or 4" guns with a few outliers, just as in real fleets.

I'm assuming that's how the research system will work already, you have to develop a new gun/turret before even considering putting it onto a ship, so newer calibers would get more expensive to start as time goes on, but if you spend too much time trying to research everything, you'll fall behind tech level wise. 

[SiWi]

On the ammunition side again:

I just remember that in theory you could use different explosive on all ships.

If having the right ammunition in store gets simulated even the slighted then that option is a non starter. 

[Tycondero]

On the drydock side of logistics. I hope they will implement a limited number of drydock spots were you can build your ships. In RTW for example you could just build unlimited amounts of ships at the same time as long as you stayed within tonnage restrictions and had the funds to back it up. I think that once a shipyard starts building a ship it is occupied and you should only be able to build/redesign another ship if a spot comes available.

[Jatzi]

On 6/2/2020 at 2:20 AM, Tycondero said:

On the drydock side of logistics. I hope they will implement a limited number of drydock spots were you can build your ships. In RTW for example you could just build unlimited amounts of ships at the same time as long as you stayed within tonnage restrictions and had the funds to back it up. I think that once a shipyard starts building a ship it is occupied and you should only be able to build/redesign another ship if a spot comes available.

Number of slipways and size of those slipways yeah. Like in Aurora. You have shipyards that have so many slipways rated for so many tons. You can either choose to increase the size of the existing slipways or build new ones. The bigger the shipyard the more costly it is to build a new slipway cuz it's built up to the same size as the others for that particular shipyard. It's customary in that game to have tons of shipyards at different sizes. Capital yards are huge but generally with less slipways while the smaller destroyer and very small FAC yards have lots of slipways. A FAC btw is a fast-attack craft(it's a space game).

[DougToss]

I really hope the devs err on the side of caution and ignore the inevitable clamor for 80k ton warships in 1900. Industrial and specifically shipbuilding and repair capacity, as well as basing are absolutely pivotal. This is another example of a time sweating the details is going to pay off down the line, so it would be better to get it right initially rather than claiming it is a placeholder value or hunting "balance".

[Reaper Jack]

2 hours ago, DougToss said:

I really hope the devs err on the side of caution and ignore the inevitable clamor for 80k ton warships in 1900. Industrial and specifically shipbuilding and repair capacity, as well as basing are absolutely pivotal. This is another example of a time sweating the details is going to pay off down the line, so it would be better to get it right initially rather than claiming it is a placeholder value or hunting "balance".

Agreed. Frankly we should be essentially limited to 40,000 ton designs all the way to 1920, as only then did we start to see capital ships get bigger. 

1890 Limit should be about 12k-15k tons. 

1900 should be about 20k. 

1910 should be 25k. 

1915 should be 30k. 

1920 should be 40k. 

1930 should be 45-50k. 

1940 is where the limits go out the window. But the prohibitive cost of building a drydock to even build something on Yamato's scale ought to be a huge headache, let  alone something that goes higher than 80k tons. 

[Marshall99]

3 hours ago, Reaper Jack said:

Agreed. Frankly we should be essentially limited to 40,000 ton designs all the way to 1920, as only then did we start to see capital ships get bigger. 

1890 Limit should be about 12k-15k tons. 

1900 should be about 20k. 

1910 should be 25k. 

1915 should be 30k. 

1920 should be 40k. 

1930 should be 45-50k. 

1940 is where the limits go out the window. But the prohibitive cost of building a drydock to even build something on Yamato's scale ought to be a huge headache, let  alone something that goes higher than 80k tons. 

I see your points, but I think the problem is that limiting will restrict the player beeing creative. And also don't forget that you don't have to build ships with maximum displacement, because later if you want to do a refit, then you can't do it due to the lack of available weight. 

[DougToss]

6 hours ago, Marshall99 said:

I see your points, but I think the problem is that limiting will restrict the player beeing creative. And also don't forget that you don't have to build ships with maximum displacement, because later if you want to do a refit, then you can't do it due to the lack of available weight. 

There wasn't a navy in the world that wouldn't have liked a 40k ton warship in 1900. It was just not possible. 

Limit the player's freedom, this is a game, not a lego set. Creativity be damned. 

Edited June 5, 2020 by DougToss

[The_Real_Hawkeye]

Outright limiting a player's ability to build ships will be something hard to swallow for some player, thus I'd advocate to avoid that.

What I would suggest instead, is having shipyard size in the campaign (kinda similar to RtW or, even better, the aforementioned Aurora 4x) and have expanding them exponentially more expensive and time consuming.

That way, sure, you can expand your yards to the point where you can build a 120,000 ton BB, but you would have to put a huge chunk of your next 10 year's naval funding into it and barely be able to maintain a few cruisers and a handful of destroyers during that time - oh and building new ships? Just forget about that!

Oh, and add the retooling of yards from Aurora 4x too - which, of course, also means the larger the yard, the longer/more expensive retooling gets.

 

The addition of yards (and slipways) would offer multiple ways (don't forget about maintenance/refits and stuff) to limit the size of ships a player can build without actually preventing it. If the player is willing to sacrifice enough stuff to get to those gigantic shipyards? Hey, more power to him.

[Cptbarney]

56 minutes ago, The_Real_Hawkeye said:

Outright limiting a player's ability to build ships will be something hard to swallow for some player, thus I'd advocate to avoid that.

What I would suggest instead, is having shipyard size in the campaign (kinda similar to RtW or, even better, the aforementioned Aurora 4x) and have expanding them exponentially more expensive and time consuming.

That way, sure, you can expand your yards to the point where you can build a 120,000 ton BB, but you would have to put a huge chunk of your next 10 year's naval funding into it and barely be able to maintain a few cruisers and a handful of destroyers during that time - oh and building new ships? Just forget about that!

Oh, and add the retooling of yards from Aurora 4x too - which, of course, also means the larger the yard, the longer/more expensive retooling gets.

 

The addition of yards (and slipways) would offer multiple ways (don't forget about maintenance/refits and stuff) to limit the size of ships a player can build without actually preventing it. If the player is willing to sacrifice enough stuff to get to those gigantic shipyards? Hey, more power to him.

You may as well not bother then, considering this game is loosely based on history and focuses more on alt-history (like RTW's), i don't think you should be massively handicapped just because you want to build a few super heavy BB's.

Having an option for less or more resources would be better, and less or more income generation as well allowing both sides to play how they want to.

[DougToss]

3 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

i don't think you should be massively handicapped just because you want to build a few super heavy BB's.

In what world would building "a few" super heavy BBs not cripple naval production? What navy in the world, what national GDP could support such a project? 

[Cptbarney]

7 minutes ago, DougToss said:

In what world would building "a few" super heavy BBs not cripple naval production? What navy in the world, what national GDP could support such a project? 

A world based entirely on fiction like this game?

[DougToss]

1 hour ago, Cptbarney said:

A world based entirely on fiction like this game?

Read anything the devs have written. The gameplay section of the websites uses the world realistic 13 times. 

A campaign where practicality, finance and limitations are not present is no campaign at all. Gameplay without constraints is a LEGO set, and once you have taken everything out of the box you quickly get bored and move on. 

 

Edited June 5, 2020 by DougToss

[Marshall99]

2 minutes ago, DougToss said:

Read anything the devs have written. The gameplay section of the websites uses the world realistic 13 times. 

A campaign where practicality, finance and limitations are not present is no campaign at all. Gameplay without constraints is a LEGO set, and once you have taken everything out of the box you quickly get bored and move on. 

 

I have played 100+ hours. And I am not bored constructing dreadnoughts. And the website also mentioned DESIGNE! your warships! I am a creative person and I will create odd looking battleships, realistic loooking battleships and every other type of warships. I paid for this game to enjoy it, and I will not accept that the designer will be more limited. It is limited enough. (Barabettes, conning towers etc...)

[Cptbarney]

3 minutes ago, DougToss said:

Read anything the devs have written. The gameplay section of the websites uses the world realistic 13 times. 

A campaign where practicality, finance and limitations are not present is no campaign at all. Gameplay without constraints is a LEGO set, and once you have taken everything out of the box you quickly get bored and move on. 

 

Realism doesn't equal historic at all times, and since this is a game said realism will be bent (I seriously doubt this will become a simulator i mean it is being built on unity) to make the game either more adaptable for players, easier for the devs to work on etc.

Frankly i don't understand why you're so hostile towards creativity, since you want the game to be clearly tailored made for yourself rather than others. Hense why a singleplayer game would allow choices for people to effectively add or takeaway elements from the game as they see fit. You know how RTW's has options for various things.

Too many restraints and game gets boring real quick same as the opposite. This game without the ship builder would be boring, uninspiring and built to an even further niche audience. Although i guess that would mean the devs could focus exclusively on realism, i don't see how you can equate real life economics in a game where you cna build 100k BB for two nations that barely had a navy to begin with (china, russia).

[Shaftoe]

Logistics better not be too complicated. I think player should have a "logistics officer", which could be leveled up with earned experience points in order to improve supply and fleet cap.

[DougToss]

22 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

1) Frankly i don't understand why you're so hostile towards creativity, since you want the game to be clearly tailored made for yourself rather than others. 

2)Too many restraints and game gets boring real quick same as the opposite.

3) This game without the ship builder would be boring, uninspiring and built to an even further niche audience.

4) Although i guess that would mean the devs could focus exclusively on realism, i don't see how you can equate real life economics in a game where you cna build 100k BB for two nations that barely had a navy to begin with (china, russia).

1) That's a pretty tiresome ad hominem and you only have to look at the reactions to my posts to see that. If you don't understand, you're choosing not to understand, since I have posted pretty extensively about naval history, game design, and arguments for granularity versus accessibility. I've made pretty clear and concise arguments, and you can engage with them or not.

Even taking you at face value, what is the crux of your argument? "You want to enjoy a game and are giving input towards that end!". Shock. Horror. 😱

2) Based on what exactly? Games have rules. In fact, that is what systematizes games and separates them from free-form play. You may get bored of rules and feel your creativity stifled, but people are still playing Gary Grigsby and Norm Kroeger games that account for the weather conditions of a tiny little hex, week by week. People still play Campaign For North Africa. That accounted for the Italian Army consuming more water to boil pasta, in fact it's getting a rerelease this year. 

3) Conjecture. Look at the media outlets covering it and forum discussions off-site and you'll see grogs are following this game more closely than … well whoever you imagine the general audience to be. 

4) Ah yes, when I think of 19th and 20th century naval warfare, I definitely also forget the Sino-Japanese and Russo-Japanese Wars, conflicts that definitely were not decided by naval power. Who can forget Japan establishing a presence in Manchuria completely uncontested without fighting major naval engagements against two countries that decidedly did not have navies, no sir. What was the strategic significance of the Shandong and Liaodong Peninsulas? I guess thirty thousand Russians were willing to die because they really liked the view from their beachfront condos. 

I hear your arguments and I disagree. That's not me wanting a game for myself, that's me disagreeing with you on pretty fundamental terms. You can either engage with the countervailing arguments or you can pout about it, but mischaracterization does you no favors. 

24 minutes ago, Marshall99 said:

I have played 100+ hours. And I am not bored constructing dreadnoughts. And the website also mentioned DESIGNE! your warships! I am a creative person and I will create odd looking battleships, realistic loooking battleships and every other type of warships. I paid for this game to enjoy it, and I will not accept that the designer will be more limited. It is limited enough. (Barabettes, conning towers etc...)

What exactly is your argument here? You paid for a game and therefore...you're not bored? 

I'm not really clear on what you are trying to say, other than you want to design things. Congratulations! So do I. 

Seeing as we both "paid for this game to enjoy it", and that seems to be the basis of your position, what are you trying to convince me of?

Edited June 5, 2020 by DougToss

[Marshall99]

36 minutes ago, DougToss said:

What exactly is your argument here?

Then you better read the comments again.

38 minutes ago, DougToss said:

I'm not really clear on what you are trying to say, other than you want to design things. Congratulations! So do I.

"Limit the player's freedom, this is a game, not a lego set. Creativity be damned." 

I am a creative person in a warship designing game. I hope you know that many players, like me, enjoy building freedom. And then you mentioned limit player's freedom. GG! It is already limited.

I am not going to convince you, because I just won't spend my free time typing back on your agressive comments.

 

Marshall99 signing out.

[Reaper Jack]

To clarify, I was not advocating actual limits, more what the rough limits would be per year considering the tech and hulls we'd likely have access to. 

[DougToss]

27 minutes ago, Marshall99 said:

"Limit the player's freedom, this is a game, not a lego set. Creativity be damned." 

1) I am a creative person in a warship designing game.

2) I hope you know that many players, like me, enjoy building freedom.

3) And then you mentioned limit player's freedom. GG! It is already limited.

I am not going to convince you, because I just won't spend my free time typing back on your agressive comments.

 

Marshall99 signing out.

See what I mean? If you string those three clauses together, what is your argument? 

1) You are creative. Okay, that was not really up for debate and doesn't have any relevance to what we're talking about here. If it makes you feel better, so am I. 😀

2) Players enjoy freedom. Yep. I agree, that's been established. That's inline with the Dev's intentions from day one. I am a player, and I also enjoy design freedom.

3) I did indeed mention constraints on freedom. Reality has constraints. The simplest games down to tic-tac-toe and tag also have constraints. I agree the Dev's have also designed reasonable limits. This discussion started with the reasonable limits of slipway space, repair and basing capacity and the more abstract limitations of national shipbuilding capacity in economic or technical terms.  

Put a couple guns on the Great Eastern and you have a 30k ton warship in the 1860's but there is a reason that four decades on,  Dreadnought was a reasonable 20k t. There's nuance here. If you really want to get into the nuts and bolts, besides there being nowhere to build such a ship, adjusting production to make enough armour just to protect such a ship would be a major undertaking. That's probably too much granularity for a game, so it is abstracted into a simple rule - hull sizes increase over time. 

So, what exactly are you no longer trying to convince me of? 

If you can build 40k tonne warships in 1900, forget not being a simulator, you are playing in a sandbox. Games employ rules and limitations to present players with challenges. All game design is a compromise in some way, and there is always a search for a golden mean between extreme rigidity and fluidity. 

I have yet to hear an argument for why eliminating rules and constraints, and therefore challenge, makes the game more fun or aims to achieve that golden mean. 

As for aggressiveness, no offense was intended. I just happen to firmly disagree with you. I'm trying to engage you on the merit of your argument, which I personally feel is unconvincing. That doesn't mean you aren't entitled to it, and of course I'm happy that you are able to share it with the community here. 

 

Edited June 5, 2020 by DougToss