Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In

Session 3 - Monday, 5th July Options · View
Fiendix
Posted: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 3:35:23 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
Traks wrote:
1 IC but the same building time maybe?
As I said, in fact Japan is hurt most with this as they can't replace losses so easily as UK.


lol "so easily" - spending 30 ic "only" on that and still going down.. thats 15% of my ic.. not to mention the need to build DDs - each 5 - 6 ic.
teamgene
Posted: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 4:12:18 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/3/2009
Posts: 588
Location: Texas
Traks wrote:
1 IC but the same building time maybe?
As I said, in fact Japan is hurt most with this as they can't replace losses so easily as UK.


Japan should be able to replace the losses about as well as UK depending on how Japan and UK start the game.

We are judging subs based on results from 1939 and 1940. They should be deadly at this time. What stopped the uboats was the breaking of the enigma code.

But that is history, we have a game here and its no fun to just spend your entire production on convoys and escorts. On the flip side, how then is Germany really supposed to wage war against the USA and UK? In the games I have played, Russia decides the game. To take away the effectiveness of the subs, pretty much give USA and UK a 'free ride' to do what they want, so I think we have to be careful here.

For this game I think what we may want to do is have Fiendix and/or Hytzon go heavy into the anti sub techs and see what the results are?








teamgene
Posted: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 4:52:30 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/3/2009
Posts: 588
Location: Texas
Traks wrote:
....I am also positively impressed by amount of Italian troops on all borders.


I am afraid that probably will not be enough.

Fiendix
Posted: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 5:20:11 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
oh I am heavy asw techs but I cant upgrade them as i dont have the ic. Plus building dds is time consumeing and costly...

As posted before I agree that UK should pay for that - though I just dont know if it should be sooo efficient. You will dish out subs with better visibility stats so even with newer DDs with better ASW I think the gap could remain the same = thus leading to the same effect. 1 sub sinking 10-20 times its value is ok - but currently 1 sub sinks 100 times its worth... (800icd v 80 000icd).

Though seeing that all my escorts are mostly dead - maybe the high ratio is ok - just that the escorts should be cheaper and more efficient in dishing out damage.
Gen.Schuermann
Posted: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 6:45:13 PM
 Generalfeldmarschall

Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership MedalAuthor of 9000th Post

Joined: 3/5/2007
Posts: 3,505
Location: guarding Democracy
Fiendix wrote:
oh I am heavy asw techs but I cant upgrade them as i dont have the ic. Plus building dds is time consumeing and costly...

As posted before I agree that UK should pay for that - though I just dont know if it should be sooo efficient. You will dish out subs with better visibility stats so even with newer DDs with better ASW I think the gap could remain the same = thus leading to the same effect. 1 sub sinking 10-20 times its value is ok - but currently 1 sub sinks 100 times its worth... (800icd v 80 000icd).

Though seeing that all my escorts are mostly dead - maybe the high ratio is ok - just that the escorts should be cheaper and more efficient in dishing out damage.


I see your point, but your calculation is skewed.
Let's say i have around 15 permanently assigned to anti convoy duty. that means 15*800 ICd = 12000 ICd.

In Soviet Russia, Schuermann defeats YOU!
Fiendix
Posted: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 7:12:59 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
Gen.Schuermann wrote:
I see your point, but your calculation is skewed.
Let's say i have around 15 permanently assigned to anti convoy duty. that means 15*800 ICd = 12000 ICd.


uhm - then I have 400? more convoys assigned to keep my lanes open - should I add that to my calculation?

none the less maybe I should have wrote for "1 sub loss" i get 400. Plus "1 sub sinking 10-20 times its value is good at the start, but in the long run it shouldnt be much higher than 3-7x which is still a huge price to pay". True the area is rich and I do have a LOT of convoys. I just keep thinking its too steep for uk and japan esp if you add to that the ammount of units (DDs, Cls) I have tied down.
teamgene
Posted: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 10:39:08 PM
 Lieutenant Colonel

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/3/2009
Posts: 588
Location: Texas
If you make it too cheap then no reason to build DD, so this is really something we will want to take a long look at and not an off the cuff type action.
Hytzon
Posted: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 10:59:40 PM
 Brigadier General

One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 3/8/2007
Posts: 1,199
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
teamgene wrote:
If you make it too cheap then no reason to build DD, so this is really something we will want to take a long look at and not an off the cuff type action.

Because DD's have lower hull value than CL's they will still have their uses, as they basically allows you to put more capital ships in a fleet. We will have to see what happens when the ASW techs catch up, but I can tell you that USA is producing DD's with up to date ASW at the moment. We will have to see if they help.

You can't say civilization don't advance - for in every war, they kill you in a new way.
Ederon
Posted: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 11:14:45 PM
 Field Major


Joined: 2/28/2007
Posts: 5,949
Location: Heart of Europe
Are we going to incorporate that beta patch alteration of subs/dds?
Traks
Posted: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 6:34:04 AM
 Centurion
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/4/2009
Posts: 853
I would vote for that.
3 Changes in Naval_technologies, tech folder:

smallwarship_asw = {
light_cruiser = {
sub_detection = 1.00
sub_attack = 0.80
}
destroyer = {
sub_detection = 1.00
sub_attack = 1.00
}


to:

smallwarship_asw = {
light_cruiser = {
sub_detection = 2.50
sub_attack = 1.00
}
destroyer = {
sub_detection = 3.00
sub_attack = 1.20
}




difficulty = 5
start_year = 1939
first_offset = 1940
additional_offset = 1

to:
difficulty = 3
start_year = 1940
first_offset = 1941
additional_offset = 2





submarine_torpedoes = {
submarine = {
sea_attack = 0.2
convoy_attack = 3.0

}

to:
submarine_torpedoes = {
submarine = {
sea_attack = 0.2
convoy_attack = 5.0

}
Nieldo
Posted: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 7:29:55 AM
 2nd Lieutenant
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 3/5/2010
Posts: 117
Location: Manchester, UK
I'm happy with any changes to this that you guys come up with. I think we can all agree that its not working as intended at the moment and needs some more balancing.
Fiendix
Posted: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 7:00:51 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
id prefer a slight nerf of costs rather than an increase of efficiency of dds through techs. Adds more drama to the game.
Ederon
Posted: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 10:44:23 PM
 Field Major


Joined: 2/28/2007
Posts: 5,949
Location: Heart of Europe
Unless somebody else does it, I'll compile it into our mod sometimes on Friday or Saturday.
Fiendix
Posted: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 11:11:26 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
again id prefer the lowering of costs instead of adding more random paradox stuff. I doubt they tested it at all.. If usa gets the better dds and is able to sink some subs then those changes are needless.
Gen.Schuermann
Posted: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 11:48:00 PM
 Generalfeldmarschall

Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership MedalAuthor of 9000th Post

Joined: 3/5/2007
Posts: 3,505
Location: guarding Democracy
i tend to agree. a doubling or tripling of detection might be too big. maybe only up the detection values by 50%, and lower convoy sinking by 33% from 3.0 to 2.0.

In Soviet Russia, Schuermann defeats YOU!
Orthank
Posted: Thursday, July 08, 2010 2:34:48 PM
 1st Lieutenant
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 1/22/2009
Posts: 184
Location: Wilanów
I think i'm rather against ASW modding, i think Paradox is already implementing some changes in current beta patches.
Gen.Schuermann
Posted: Thursday, July 08, 2010 3:14:06 PM
 Generalfeldmarschall

Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership MedalAuthor of 9000th Post

Joined: 3/5/2007
Posts: 3,505
Location: guarding Democracy
thing is we are unlikely to use the patch due to possible problems.

In Soviet Russia, Schuermann defeats YOU!
Traks
Posted: Thursday, July 08, 2010 3:15:54 PM
 Centurion
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 11/4/2009
Posts: 853
I took changes directly from beta files.
But beta itself could cause all kind of crashes and problems.
Anyway, decision is up to naval powers.
Fiendix
Posted: Thursday, July 08, 2010 3:21:26 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
as I said - lowest chance of fucking something up is just changeing the costs.

plus any changes to doctrines or naval stats wont take effect if the tech is already researched. A lot of manual editing of the save would be needed.
Ederon
Posted: Thursday, July 08, 2010 3:31:04 PM
 Field Major


Joined: 2/28/2007
Posts: 5,949
Location: Heart of Europe
How big should be the reduction?
Gen.Schuermann
Posted: Thursday, July 08, 2010 3:35:00 PM
 Generalfeldmarschall

Forum Supporter Medal 1st ClassOne Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership MedalAuthor of 9000th Post

Joined: 3/5/2007
Posts: 3,505
Location: guarding Democracy
I would say half?

In Soviet Russia, Schuermann defeats YOU!
Fiendix
Posted: Thursday, July 08, 2010 4:11:59 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
1,25 for convoys and 2 for for escorts. So at least it will be worth to build them even though they die like flies and dont seem to do much damage to subs?
Ederon
Posted: Thursday, July 08, 2010 4:36:02 PM
 Field Major


Joined: 2/28/2007
Posts: 5,949
Location: Heart of Europe
So we are talking about convoys/escorts, not destroyers?
Fiendix
Posted: Thursday, July 08, 2010 4:45:22 PM
 Pilus prior
One Year Membership MedalTwo Year Membership Medal

Joined: 4/25/2008
Posts: 1,017
yea of course - why should we touch destroyers? Editing 50-100 of all nations in the save would be crazy.
Ederon
Posted: Thursday, July 08, 2010 4:57:26 PM
 Field Major


Joined: 2/28/2007
Posts: 5,949
Location: Heart of Europe
Ok, here is what I did:
Code:
    CONVOY_BUILD_COST         = 1.3,    --2
    CONVOY_BUILD_TIME         = 90,    --100,
    ESCORT_BUILD_COST         = 2.7,    --4,
    ESCORT_BUILD_TIME         = 180,    --240,

Reduction is basically 50% in IC-days. Checksum is remains the same, DWNA.

File Attachment(s):
mod_SF_DWNA_with_convoyfix.rar (104kb) downloaded 21 time(s).


Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.0 (NET v2.0) - 10/10/2006
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2005-2007 Daniel "Lord Ederon" Scibrany. All rights reserved.