Major Problem with Ship Construction

[bjfagan]

I am pretty sure there is a problem with the evolving naval techs and ship construction. When a tech is discovered that allows a new ship class/type to be built, it is not entirely clear what type of ships can be built out of the available production pool. This is what tricked some of the players in our MP game, who did not realize they could build the newer ships, since the ones in the pool still had the image/icon of the previous type. When those older ships were placed on the map for construction, the new class appeared on the map. The problem at hand is the cost to build that new ship is for the older model (the one chosen in the production pool) and not the new one (that is actually appearing and being built on the map). I now realize this is going to be a major problem as the game goes forward, since the newer models of ships are going to require much larger amounts of material to construct.

I did not know the difference in cost between the old wooden screw battleship and the newer ironclad battleship, because I never received the proper icon for that ironclad model in my production pool. In fact, I still have not received it and do not know which tech places the proper icon in the pool. I did not realize how big this problem is going to be until I got my most recent advanced tech. In our MP game, I discovered and can now build the 1875-1895 light cruiser. My ironclad corvette icons in the pool have switched over to the new light cruiser icon and I can see the proper cost for building those ships. They are definitely more expensive, especially in steel. However, I still have a lot of the wooden corvette icons that can be built and when I place one of these on the map it turns into the light cruiser, but at the very cheap cost of building the old wooden corvette. The difference is so big that I cannot, in good conscience, build new light cruisers at the old wooden corvette prices. This would definitely be cheating.

Unfortunately, I still do not know the true cost of an ironclad battleship and I did not realize this could be a potential problem at the time I built a lot of them. I do not believe, however, the costs can be very much different than the wooden screw battleship. At least not as great as the leap to the steel ships is going to be.

Here are the two possiblities causing this problem as I see it:

1. The game is not upgrading all the available builds in the pool, for a particular type of ship, to the new tech level when it is discovered
or
2. The game is mistakenly allowing the more advance class of ships to be built when the old tech icon is chosen and placed on the map for construction

I personally believe that all allowable builds should be upgraded to the new tech (issue #1 above) and the old ones removed so they cannot be built, but I do not know what the devs had intended. I hope this can be fixed quickly, so that we are all paying the proper cost for our new ships.

[bjfagan]

One of the other players in the MP game explained the cost per element can be found in the upper left hand corner of the unit info-panel. So I calculated the costs of the two ship classes and they were close to each other in coal, mfg goods and manpower costs, but the ironclad battleship required 100 more steel and 56 more state funds than the wooden screw battleship.

I also discovered that the wooden ships don't actually require wood to build. The wooden screw battleship only requires 20 steel to build and the wooden corvette only 4 steel, in addition to the miscellaneous costs. Unless the wood is considered to be free there should be an actual construction cost in wood too. Even the ironclad ships should have a certain amount of wood required.

[Egg Bub]

I agree, although I am not part of the MP game. I also think ironclad ships should really be available for Great Britain and France a bit earlier since historically they were built from 1860 onward.

Out of interest, are navies of more importance in the MP game, because in the SP campaign I have hardly used anything except transports? Enemy fleets seem to rush for the MTBs as soon as war is declared and leave their coastline free for my troops to land there. This is quite annoying too, as modifiers seem to apply to battle fleets in MTBs as well as to merchant vessels so that you can't properly engage them. For example, ships like Bismarck and Hood in real life (a little later I know) were able to fight real battles and get sunk even though they were in an MTB.

[nemethand]

Out of interest, are navies of more importance in the MP game, because in the SP campaign I have hardly used anything except transports? Enemy fleets seem to rush for the MTBs as soon as war is declared and leave their coastline free for my troops to land there.

I would say that, very generally, you find most types of actions in our MP as in history.

There are (attempted) blockades, major (epic!) naval battles and, naturally, troops transports. This latter being especially important since it is still faster to travel on water to some parts of the world than on land.

[lukasberger]

I would say that, very generally, you find most types of actions in our MP as in history.

There are (attempted) blockades, major (epic!) naval battles and, naturally, troops transports. This latter being especially important since it is still faster to travel on water to some parts of the world than on land.

I have to agree. Navies are extremely important in the MP game.

[Emre Yigit]

Just FYI, it is the first battleship technology that grants ironclad warships, rather than any "ironclad" technology which, as you say, grants ironclad frigates and light cruisers.

[Sir Garnet]

Enemy fleets seem to rush for the MTBs as soon as war is declared and leave their coastline free for my troops to land there. This is quite annoying too, as modifiers seem to apply to battle fleets in MTBs as well as to merchant vessels so that you can't properly engage them. For example, ships like Bismarck and Hood in real life (a little later I know) were able to fight real battles and get sunk even though they were in an MTB.

The revised manual explains that MTB combat is abstracted; patches have increased damage. I have not heard any mention in our MP of commerce raiding other than one incident against me that was probably a lone squadron ducking into the MTB en route elsewhere. At least in my particular war, classical liberal role playing sensibilities are opposed to commerce raiding, besides it would hurt both sides and expand what is a limited-purpose war.

I would say that fleets can be very important, even central to a national stragegy, in ways they were historically. Great Britain's naval dominance is a key part of its strategic position and historically and in game it is likely to rely on the fleet rather than ground troops for the security of the British Isles. The rise in the 1860s of a powerful and modern though still much smaller Prussian Kriegsmarine was a pivotal development and helped enable landings in the British Isles that forced an end to the Greek War some years back. There are many good reasons to disperse a fleet, but admirals want to be concentrated for battle. Naval and combined operations are every bit as interesting and a good deal more complex than ground forces alone.

Since ships can evade detection (especially in bad weather), even a greatly inferior enemy force that remains in being can pose a problem unless it can be penned up under blockade in port - and it can try to break out. So even with a superior fleet, it remains prudent to take care and escort loaded transports.

[Egg Bub]

OK, sounds like the MP is where it's at, but it would be nice to have a decent naval battle with the AI from time to time. I know that MTB combat is abstracted, not a problem, but as the AI insists on hiding its fleets there it means you can't properly attack them. Maybe in future patches warship versus warship combat in MTBs should at least have a 1/3 chance of taking place and when it does it should be like a battle fought anywhere else.

P.S. I am aware that outside the American Civil War, there was very little naval warfare involving Britain between 1860 and 1914 so I understand that it is not one of the most important aspects of the game for most of the Great Powers. However, when you play as GB whose greatest strength is its navy, AI cowardice can be really disappointing. For example, I was hoping that at the beginning of the Crimean war I would be able to destroy the Russian black sea fleet quickly, as per real life. Unfortunately, since I did not sneak attack them, they simply put their fleet in the Mediterranean MTB as soon as war was declared, thus rendering it indestructible. I was then able to land 100,000+ men on their coast without escorting a single transport ship.

[Le Ricain]

My game as GBR is a bit further along than the MP game. Regarding ship production, I have noticed that the Later Armoured Cruiser tech allows GBR to build Later model light Cruisers and not later model Armoured Cruisers,

[Pocus]

About the bug of units not updated in the pool, I would need a saved game showing that, so I know if the data re not updated (that would mean an error in the script probably) or they are but the display is not (that would mean an error in the display code).

Has Kensai spotted or reacted on this issue too? Perhaps some of you did some sleuth work to see if the script are faulty or are missing cases.

About Wooden ships not requiring wood, this is an engine limitation. The cost of an unit can only be expressed in some resources, that are named 'assets' internally. Assets are money, steel, coal etc. but most merchandises are not assets, they are just a creation from the database. Wood is a merchandise, not an asset and thus can't be used as a unit cost, sorry. Let's rationalize by saying that money is factoring wood cost.

[bjfagan]

Thanks Pocus. I sent you a turn file with the password.

[Pocus]

I got it Brian, will try to check that before Friday (no promise though).