What production delays are being considered?

[Edwin P.]

Another change is an optional production delay, which means BBs and carriers will take quite a while (12-18 months) to build. This may affect some game situations, depending on who likes to plan ahead and who doesn't.

The above quote mentions production delays for BBs and CVs. Are the designers considering production delays for any other type of units?

Another item to consider is allowing each nation the option to select a production policy that reduces the production time for one type of unit but increases it for others.

For example - a nation that favors surface warfare might select a Surface Warfare Production policy that reduces the time to produce batteships and cruisers but increases the time to produce carriers and subs as the most skilled machinists and personnel are diverted to work on the production of surface warfare ships. A nation that favors submarine warfare might select a policy that speeds the production of subs at the cost of lengthening the production time (or increasing the cost) for other naval ships.

Example:

Carriers Standard: Carriers 18 Months, Battleships 12 months, Cruisers 8 months, sub 6 months

Carriers Focus: Carriers 12 months, Battleships 16 months, Cruisers 12 months, Subs 8 Months

Sub Focus: Carriers 22 months, Battleships 16 months, Cruisers 12 months, Subs 3 months

Battleship Focus: Carriers 22 months, Battleships 8 months, Cruisers 12 months, Subs 8 Months

Cruiser Focus: Carriers 22 Months, Battleships 18 months, Cruisers 6 Months, Subs 8 Months

Thus a german player wanting to focus on subs might select a Submarine Production focus strategy to reduce the time for production from 6 to 3 months at the cost of increasing the proudction time for other naval units.

Naturally the cost to change your production policy late in the game would be rather expensive, say 500MPPs, due to the disruption it would cause.

[ September 05, 2004, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Desert Dave]

Another item to consider is allowing each nation the option to select a production policy that reduces the production time for one type of unit but increases it for others.

Yep Edwin P, you can have unique production times... for ALL units.

Thus, each Country, including each and every Minor, can have "assembly-line" times that are unique to them.

Part of the beta-testing process will be to see how the default assigned-times hold up and how that effects S&T gaming over-all.

Cool Sequoia Trees

Bending in an ocean-blown breeze, eh? :cool:

[Edwin P.]

What about a Mass Production Tech?

Each level of Mass Production Tech reduces the production time for one specific type of unit (Carriers, Cruisers, Battleships, Subs, Armor, Air Fleets, Strategic Bombers) by 1 Month, subject to a minimum production time for each unit.

Example:

Level 2 Mass Production Tech (Carriers) reduces the time to produce carriers by 2 months.

Level 1 Mass Production Tech (Strategic Bombers) reduces the time to produce bombers by 1 Month.

Thus players can invest in this area and reduce the time required to produce specific types of units and this would introduce more uncertainty to the game vis a vis your opponent's capabilities.

It would also allow users to recreate the strategic allocations which were made during WWII that affect the production times of various units.

[ September 05, 2004, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[pzgndr]

There is Production Technology that will reduce production costs but won't reduce production times. If L5 were to reduce times by 5 months, that's more than some of the default times!

As Dave pointed out, all of these times can be adjusted by unit type and for each country. So nations could have strengths and weaknesses built in. US shipbuilding may be faster, Italian tank production slower, etc. Not sure at this point whether the official release will attempt to do any of this, but players are certainly free to customize things later.

The generic production delays respond to feedback regarding instant builds in SC1. Whether a battleship or carrier takes 12-18 months or something shorter is a minor detail; it's going to take a while regardless. And the delays are relative, since ALL countries will have delays. THAT will create an interesting dynamic in SC2.

[ev]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

There is Production Technology that will reduce production costs but won't reduce production times... THAT will create an interesting dynamic in SC2.

Ah, yes. And also Production Technology is "all inclusive" instead of industry specific...

...which makes me wonder. Maybe Production Technology should be specific of a type of weapon. Say we have three or four production technologies:

* One production tech for ships;

* One production tech for airplanes;

* One production tech for land units;

And, maybe, just maybe,

* One production tech for "operational movement".

If we have several such techs, then each tech could reduce costs and increase production speed for units within their section of the economy. ...but the effects of higher tech levels could be different in each area. A higher sea production tech may have a larger effect on construction speed while a lesser effect on cost. On the other hand, air and land production techs could could affect mostly the cost of purchasing units.

[Edwin P.]

Ev, excellent new idea.

The key element for me is that I believe that players - as the strategic commanders - should have some ability to accelerate the default production times for units, especially naval ships - battleships and carriers - at a cost, within the game system and not do it in the setup file.

Ev's idea for a ship production tech is one option.

Selecting a naval industrial policy (that accelerates the production of one type of naval unit while penalizing others) is another.

Another option is to allow for accelerated production at a cost of say 20% of the units price.

PS:

If L5 were to reduce times by 5 months, that's more than some of the default times!

I agree. I suggest a miniumum production time. Thus the minimum for an armor unit might be 2 months. With a starting time of 3 months, the most you could hope to do is reduce it to 2 months. With a carrier the minimum might be 12 months, with a starting production time of 18 months, you could reduce the production time by 1 to 6 months, but no more. Of course, resources applied towards reducing the production time are not available for building units or researching techs such as Anti-Armor.

[ September 06, 2004, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Retributar]

Certain countries like Germany should NOT be able to produce any naval vessels other than 'Submarines'...until they have gained complete control over the continent and their airspace.

Otherwise the Allies will just bomb any ship production that they might attempt. It would not be realistic for Germany to spend 2-3 years constructing a Battleship...when the Allies can simply send in 1-Bomb run and destroy the project!.

[Edwin P.]

I disagree, Germany should be allowed to build them (when have they ever built one in a SC game?) and the allies should be allowed to bomb it (how often do they build long range bombers that can hit the German ports?)

[JerseyJohn]

The historic rule of thumb for the period is three years for battleships and two years for aircraft carriers. That's from start to finish.

Great Britain completed several great battleships long after they were needed, Lion and Thunderer class I believe. They had similar disigns and the main diffeence was size, one had nine 15" guns and the other had nine 16" guns. They were laid down to replace the smaller KGV class which had ten 14" guns and was itself being put into service when Bismark and Tirpitz (8x15" guns) were in service for Germany.

The point is, Britain completed these ships when it had little need for them but they were started when the did -- three years earlier!

It makes some sense for Germany to have shipbuilding short cuts because much of what they were planning, in terms of capital ships, involved utilizing half finished BBs, CVs, CAs and DDs laid down in France and other occupied countries. As the war never got to the German Blue Water Navy phase, those vessels remained as they were and several were finally finished by the countries that started them after the war ended.

I think having a construction time for naval units and training time for land / air units is essential.

Having higher construction tech is a tricky subject. In certain cases, such as the American liberty ships and Higgins boats it did considerably accellerate the process, but they were not built for durability; liberty ships were suicide in cold water! Higgins boats were built with the idea that they'd only see a few uses in combat conditions before either being rebuilt or canibalized for other landing craft.

But how do you rush construction of a battleship or aircraft carrier?

[Edwin P.]

But how do you rush construction of a battleship or aircraft carrier?

How do you rush construction of an aircraft carrier? How about working 3 shifts a day 7 days a week for 52 weeks a year. Of course, the cost increases by at least 50%.

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin,

They did!

All wartime projects and plants had three shifts and worked at full capacity with women filling in for men in the military!

By the end of the war they were still churning out at incredible rates because Operation Olympic, the invasion of Japan, was still being anticipated.

There is film footage of sherman tanks, new aircraft and tons of amunition being craned off transports at sea instead of returning them to the U. S.. I've never understood the logic of that but it shows how abundant all classes of war equipment was by 1945.

The U. S. has a history of doing this. There's even older footage of nearly completed battleships being sunk off the United States coast at the end of World War One.

There are many shortcuts that cannot be taken with capital ships, this is especially true when discussing early 1940s technology. Keels had to set and engines needed to undergo trial runs, all of this was in addition to the basic construction labor hours.

The following is a list of all construction details of every battleship ever built by the United States, including building time under and times over expectation. The last two listed, the Kentucky and Illonois, were laid down in 1944 and never completed. In other words, a year and a half later they were still only partially finished!

< Complete Construction Details of ALL U. S. Battleships, U. S. S. Maine thru Illonois >

[ September 07, 2004, 10:01 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Edwin P.]

Jersey John, wow, thanks for the info and the link. Its amazing to me how long it took to build these ships and how these times varied from a standard. Did Germany have the same level of mobilization as the US? I will have to do some searching to find out.

[JerseyJohn]

My pleasure Edwin.

To be honest I was surprised when I found that thing, it was a pleasant surprise!

From what I've read, Germany and Britain had much greater construction problems due to the availability of raw materials.

Whan Hitler was allotting materials for the Z-Plan he was told that a battleship was the equivalent of a full stregnth panzer division!

I found an interesting site on the last British Battleship, HMS Vanguard, the text is copied below and the photos added.

Due to wartime shortages and conditions, it's keel was laid down in Oct 1941 and it was actually ready for battle in August 1946, five years later and over a year after the war had ended in Europe!

The link is:

< Birth of a Battleship >

Birth of a Battleship

HMS Vanguard was born on 9th August1946 when she completed her final acceptance trials but her conception was many years earlier during the dark years of World War Two. The decision to build the ninth Vanguard was taken at a time when Allied victory was still only a distant hope. Her keel was laid down in John Brown's yard at Clydebank on 2nd October 1941. At that time the Geman advance across Russia had not then been stemmed: the launching of the second front was still only a distant hazy dream. Only in Africa was the British Army on the offensive.

HMS Vanguard takes to the Water

It was the faith in the future of Britain that justified the building of HMS Vanguard. Despite air raids, high shipping losses and the inevitable wartime shortages of materials, no thought, no effort and no equipment was spared to ensure that she should be the last word in battleship construction. It has always been a mistake to claim that a ship is unsinkable - the fate of the Bismarck was proof of that - but there is no doubt that Vanguard was made as difficult to sink as humanly possible. Many improvements were incorporated in her design after building started as a result of experiences gained in the form of sea warfare encountered in the the Second World War.

After the Launch

HMS Vanguard was the largest warship ever built in Great Britain. She was 814 feet long and weighed 45000 tons. A point of interest was that her 15 inch guns were taken from reserves for the 'Royal Sovereign' class of battleship. The two reasons for this were that as she was constructed in wartime it was important that the armament firms should not have to employ their resources in the manufacturing the guns and mountings to the detriment of their other work. Further, the original 15 inch gun and mounting was the most successful ever produced.

Next

The armour plating and watertight subdivisions had been planned to provide the highest degree of protection against bomb and torpedo damage. Her oil-fired boilers were operated on a new system which led to greater efficiency and less work for the engine room staff. Her ventilating system was of the most modern design for the period, and thereby improved the working conditions for those whose duties kept them below decks. A special system of humidity control was installed in the engine and boiler rooms which helped to maintain an even temperature whether the ship was in the Arctic or in the Tropics. Her anti-aircraft equipment was the finest ever installed in any ship of the Royal Navy. The battleship cost about £9,000,000, exclusive of her guns and mountings. During her construction no fewer than 3500 men and women were employed.

[ September 08, 2004, 06:35 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Edwin P.]

JerseyJohn,

Your comments reinforce my opinion that each nation, especially Germany and the UK, should be able to select an industrial policy for their naval construction that will favor one type of ship while penalizing the production time of other types of ships - perhaps by reducing the production time for carriers by 20% while increasing the time for battleships and cruisers by 20%. Thus reflecting an allocation of limited resources - between submarines, battleships, cruisers, and carrier fleets in SC.

What are your thoughts?

Of course, the effect on game play is probably so minor that its not even worth considering - ie the difference between producing a carrier in 20 months vs 24 months.

:cool: As was mentioned earlier in this thread, SC is considering productin times for Carriers of 18 months and Battleships of 12 months. Given your information, for semi-historical reasons these numbers should be reversed!

Many thanks again for the info on the Vanguard.

[ September 08, 2004, 06:43 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin,

Appreciated.

I agree with you, the production schedule for those two ship types should certainly be reversed!

The Germans launched two aircraft carriers in 1938, The Graf Zeppelin and the Peter Strasser, sister ships, each capable of carrying 42 aircraft of ME109 or Stuka size and those were types anticipated. Neither ship was ever completed, in part because Goering insisted the pilots be provided by the Luftwaffe and Raeder, naturally, felt they had to be trained as naval aviators, as was done in all other countries!

I think 18 months for BBs and 12 for CVs would be good for game purposes. There's no reason to so realistic that making a late decision means not have the ships till after the game is over! We can make the slight assupmtion that at some earlier point we'd laid some keels!

Definitely some countries should have the edge in certain areas.

I'd penalize Germany for carriers due to the infighting and lack of naval air doctine -- all aviators on German war ships were luftwaffe, not navy, which is absurd but the way it was done.

I'd penalize U. K. for Battleships due to overal raw material and manpower shortages.

The United States should recieve a bonus for carriers. First because a massive construction program was begun before the war and secondly because the United States had many times as many trained civillian pilots than any other country on earth; it was comparatively easy for her to assign aviators to new ships and provide replacements quickly for battle losses. I think that's significant and ought to be reflected.

Very glad you enjoyed the Vanguard piece. I've been searching titles like "naval production" and "warship production." and have been finding many interesting and relevant sites.

[With Clusters]

What about the possibility of "altering" a naval building program once commenced?

Depending on the alteration desired, this could either increase the cost and time (paying the extra cost at the time the alteration is commenced), or decrease them (getting a MPP "rebate" - at a significant penalty, of course - at the time of alteration).

You could thus possibly "upgrade" an already laid keel, for extra time and cost. For example, weren't there some cruiser hulls converted later to a sort of pocket battleship by adding extra armor and heavier guns? I'm not sure, but I thought that the H.M.S. Hood was one such conversion (and possibly the reason why it sank in such dramatic fashion - the keel/hull couldn't handle the extra weight, or something?).

Or you could "downgrade" an already laid keel, to either convert it to something more usefull to your cause, or to cut time and cost. Weren't there escort carriers and such that were built on converted cruiser hulls? Was there ever a conversion of a battleship hull into something like a heavy cruiser to save time and money?

I would figure the later possibility least likely in SC2 terms, seeing as how it would neccesitate a new "escort carrier group" unit, and also that such ships were deployed mostly in the Pacific, IIRC, anyhow. But it would be nice if there was some added flexibility to such long range projects as capitol ship groups, not withstanding a possible impact on ease of play.

Any thoughts?

[JerseyJohn]

I don't know about downgrading keels, once laid the idea is to let everything set im place while adding parts to it.

In several instances the Japanese converted keels intended for BBs (one of them the third of the Yamato class) and heavy cruisers into aircraft carriers.

Escort carriers were generally converted cruisers, usually light ones and obsolete, which meant they were underpowered and slow, not a particular disadvantage for escorting a convoy, but they could never maneuver with a fleet in battle (they were 1/3 the speed of fleet carriers, cruisers and the later BBs).

To me the altering of construction time Edwin was discussing is more an abstract game concept than anything having to do with history, in any strict sense. It might mean that particular country's leadership would have set the keel and begun construction earlier than the player did, so he benefits from the national expertise in that area. In the case of a penalty it reflects either a material / labor shortage or, as in the case of Germany, leadership that often worked against each other. Even with the German Navy itself, Doenitz and Raeder often worked against one another and when Doenitz took over he immediately reversed all of Raeder's policies!

It gets back to the old SC forum argument, history vs gameplay. As long as there are points for both sides I'm all for concessions toward gameplay. Naturally, the idea of simply paying for an aircraft carrier or battleship and having it immediately ready for action never appealed to me, nor to many others.

On the subject of Germany utilizing captured French keels and ships. Hitler wanted to build a 100,000 ton monster BB with 20" main guns! So, naturally, none of the French keels would have satisfied him. I believe the Raeder was planning to use a few unfinished French BBs with 15" main guns and wanted the less developed capital ship keels for aircraft carriers. The 100,000 ton monster would have been built in Germany and I think four years would be a safe guess, assuming Russia had already fallen.

[Edwin P.]

To me the altering of construction time Edwin was discussing is more an abstract game concept than anything having to do with history, in any strict sense. It might mean that particular country's leadership would have set the keel and begun construction earlier than the player did, so he benefits from the national expertise in that area. In the case of a penalty it reflects either a material / labor shortage or, as in the case of Germany, leadership that often worked against each other. Even with the German Navy itself, Doenitz and Raeder often worked against one another and when Doenitz took over he immediately reversed all of Raeder's policies

For me, every government adopts policies that favor a specific service and/or a set of strategies within that service. It would be interesting from a historical and game view if one could model the effects of nations adopting different policies.

Such as: What would have happened if Hitler favored the Navy over the Air Force?

For example: Germany adopted a policy that favored mobile warfare, as it was then known. While the French and Russian had adopted a policy that favored more static defense lines, n the thinking of WWI Trench Warfare. In the US there was the conflict between those that favored Carriers and those that favored the primacy of Battleships. Naturally this conflict affects specfic arms of the services in positive and negative ways.

PS: HC don't even think about this if it will delay the completion of the work of art you are working on. All I really want is a really good AI.

[ September 08, 2004, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Norse]

Originally posted by Retributar:

Certain countries like Germany should NOT be able to produce any naval vessels other than 'Submarines'...until they have gained complete control over the continent and their airspace.

A big part of this game is to explore "what-if's". That certain what-if's wouldn't have worked historically is IMHO not a good reason to say "you're not allowed to even try".

[Desert Dave]

A big part of this game is to explore "what-if's". That certain what-if's wouldn't have worked historically is IMHO not a good reason to say "you're not even allowed to try".

Rest assured... given the new! Editor that will be provided,

There aren't many, if ANY... "what-if" scenarious that you couldn't personally explore.

Whether it be experimental military units, or different Diplomatic alliances, or variable research options, or, or, or...

I am thinking it over now, and I really do NOT see which "what-if" ... COULDN'T be implemented in some satisfactory way.

Sure, there are a few hard-coded restrictions, there HAS to be, but, truly, not very many... you'll see! :cool:

[Norse]

Cool! Sounds great! :cool:

[Blashy]

Edwin, I'm not bashing your ideas here, they are all good.

But IMHO, you're not looking a the right game.

If we were to implement just 50% of your ideas, this game would probably be the most elaborate war sim game ever made.

But SC prides itself on being extremely easy to learn.

You should go the World in Fire forums and submit all you ideas, they are looking to make it VERY elaborate.

Like I said, not bashing your ideas, just saying this might not be the game for them.

NOTE: Apart from scripts, scripts are scripts and just pop up and ask the player this or that, nothing elaborate there.

[Desert Dave]

It is the thundrous summer of '41,

The World as only recently known

Has exploded! into a dull droning ferocity,

It's those blunt-nose Panzers - unleashed,

Tearing through bulwark of barricade trees

And the pieces & clumps tumble to Earth

And burn and sizzle and sunder

As Thor-hurled lightning

Fierce follows the thunder,

But... back home, oh,

In that exceeding great Nation

Of... summertime frolic and fun,

Where baseball is unrivaled... King,

It is... Joltin' Joe Dimaggio,

Wicked hot with his very own

Lightning and lumber,

Tearing up the American League

And what a phemonenal hitting streak!

Has now reached... 56 games! :cool:

Apart from scripts, scripts are scripts and just pop up and ask the player this or that, nothing elaborate there.

Yep, Blashy, you can have

Your own edited-in scripts,

Such as the one mentioned above,

Assuming of course,

That this tremendous baseball feat

Is not... already in there!

[Blashy]

LOL!

You see, not complicated.

That's why I bought SC, the only non First Person Shooter I've ever bought. It was easy and simple to play.

The only thing I would add to it is a very extensive editor. Which is what SC2 will have.

[Desert Dave]

Well, Joltin' Joe knew how

To have fun too,

As do we... though our romance is likely to be

A LOT less... Hooray! For Hollywood... LOL!

The thing is,

I agree with you... mainly keep it simple

And yet... allow ENOUGH "historical detail"

AND historically faithful parameters

So that BOTH the Grogs and the Young Guns

With thunder in a slick-slack leather holster

CAN have a great time with this next game!

Trust me, that new Editor is like... old

Magic made sure sterling new again, oh,

The kind that once erupted all over!

The Ancient Place,

Then there were mighty Giants grinning!

Astride the earth!

We're getting there... won't be too long

Before YOU! too can test yer moxie & mettle

Against other Young Guns

And! Old Slingers alike! :cool: