Posted by: MarcAFK
« on: February 11, 2016, 10:04:51 AM »You're absolutely correct.
Edit: After deleting all shipyards and just creating a single yard for each class the build time is now as follows:You...
Amon: 1 slipway = 38 months, 36 slipways = 47 months.
Amonx6: 1 slipway = 64 months, 6 slipways = 47.5 months.
Amonx36 1 slipway = 68 months
Edit: Once you reach 127,000 naval tons total build rate starts going down across every shipyard.
You lose about 10% build rate for every increase of 127,000 tons of naval, and approxximately 1,270,000 commercial.
Bha, one should not check sources late at night. I specificity remembered (and checked) that states built ships in the period but missed that those were covered in the treaty as exceptions. Still only applies to capital ships though (yes those others were covered as well in the London treaty some 8 years later).It happens. And I'm also aware of the London Treaty. (First and (aborted) second.)
Thus the imo. And of course ships and material age. That said, you dont go out and buy a new car just because the radiator is broke. Now yes, there is a bit of a difference between ripping out the boilers of a bb and changing the radiator, but as long as the overall design is not obsolete (as one could argue that for example the Dreadnought class was) it is still far cheaper then building a whole new ship.Not as much as you'd think. Changing boilers is a very expensive operation, particularly when it involves cutting open deck armor. I'll have to see if I can find figures for cost on the refits of the Standards. Also, ships do become obsolete. Dreadnought had thin armor, small guns, and a really terrible gun layout. Few of the ships with guns smaller than 14 inches survived the treaty, and I strongly suspect that the battleships which did survive wouldn't have if they'd been able to be replaced by more modern ships.
From Part 3, Section I:The 10-year holiday (later extended 5 years by the London Naval Treaty) is mentioned in every work on the subject I've ever read.
Reliable sources on this say differently. The British fleet had been worked very hard during the war. The USN was in slightly better shape, but there was a reason why almost all of the retained battleships had their machinery replaced. It was just not possible at the time to make a machinery plant that would last more than 15-20 years. And real-world refits don't work like they do in Aurora
As far as I know that treaty came about because it was bloody expensive to build new ships. And the treaty did not say that you could not build new ships, only how many and how big. Now this had a couple of things to do with the arms race that was going on at the time that none really wanted to pay for, but that was more of navies expanding rather then replacing. And you dont really build a big bb just to throw it away a couple of years later, they are way to expensive for that.
It said nothing about building new battle ships (and note that I separate battle ship from battleships). The WNT only limited how many/big/armed and total displacement of capital ships you could have. You were completely free to build new ones if you wanted as long as you removed the old ones. Also the WNT said nothing (apart from individual size of the ship) about battle ships that were not capital ships. The London NT 1 and 2 later placed restrictions on cruisers, destroyers and submarines as well and those restrictions were similar to the ones above (aka size, armament and total displacement of the fleet). Nowhere does it say anything about not building new ships...........................From Part 3, Section I:
(a) Capital ships and aircraft carriers twenty years after the date of their completion may, except as otherwise provided in Article VIII and in the tables in Section II of this Part, be replaced by new construction, but within the limits prescribed in Article IV and Article VII. The keels of such new construction may, except as otherwise provided in Article VIII and in the tables in Section II of this Part, be laid down not earlier than seventeen years from the date of completion of the tonnage to be replaced, provided, however, that no capital ship tonnage, with the exception of the ships referred to in the third paragraph of Article II, and the replacement tonnage specifically mentioned in Section II of this Part, shall be laid down until ten years from November 12, 1921.The 10-year holiday (later extended 5 years by the London Naval Treaty) is mentioned in every work on the subject I've ever read.
And I am of the opinion that most of the warships that got decommissioned (and sold for scrap) after ww1 was so because states needed money in a really bad way, not because they were worn out. Obsolete I might agree on, depending on what ship we are talking about, but not worn out. I mean, lets take Dreadnought herself as an example. Commissioned in 1906, decommissioned 1919. During this time she was refit (at least) twice (and do note that this was before the treaty), the last time started just before the end of the war (and just before being decommissioned) when, imo, the UK government realised they needed cash badly and sold here for scrap. I have a hard time believing that she was "worn out" by that time.Reliable sources on this say differently. The British fleet had been worked very hard during the war. The USN was in slightly better shape, but there was a reason why almost all of the retained battleships had their machinery replaced. It was just not possible at the time to make a machinery plant that would last more than 15-20 years. And real-world refits don't work like they do in Aurora. No matter how often you refit, ships still age.
Fun fact, she is the only battleship to take out a submarine and she did it by rammingYes, I was aware of that. I am also aware of the Bunga Bunga plot where a bunch of fake "Abyssinians" got aboard.
Uhh....
It did say you couldn't build new battleships. Thus, if you wanted better battleships, you had to make them out of your old ones. Nobody did big refits on other types of ships, because there was no point in doing so. It was better to throw the old ones away and build new ones.
As far as I know that treaty came about because it was bloody expensive to build new ships.That, and the popular perception that the naval arms race contributed to the start of WWI. Nobody wanted to have a building race, which seemed to be forming before the WNT was signed.
And the treaty did not say that you could not build new ships, only how many and how big.Uhh....
Now this had a couple of things to do with the arms race that was going on at the time that none really wanted to pay for, but that was more of navies expanding rather then replacing. And you dont really build a big bb just to throw it away a couple of years later, they are way to expensive for that.Not really. The service life of a warship was a lot shorter back then. The early dreadnoughts were worn out by the end of the war, and they were maybe 15 years old. They'd have been headed into reserve anyway, if the treaty hadn't sent them to the scrapyard instead. For another example, take the flush-deckers. The ones that survived into WWII were about 20 years old, and had pretty much all spent significant time in reserve. The ones that didn't spend time in reserve had been scrapped because they were worn out. It's often cheaper in the long run to build a new ship than to upgrade an existing one (something politicians today have trouble understanding), but it was the way of things back then. Also, design art was evolving a lot faster back then than it is today, which meant that ships became functionally obsolete much more quickly.
This is very correct. Under the Naval accords they could not build new ships, so they rebuilt old ones. If they could build and replace they would of built and replace.
The same was done to some of the USN battleships during the 20s. However, that armor was non-structural, and doing so was very expensive. Which is why it wasn't done more. They were rebuilding ships because they weren't allowed to build new ones, not because it was the best solution overall.
For the record re-increased armour protection you should look at the Italian Conte di Cavour and Andrea Doria Battleship classes. They were rebuilt into what amounted to totally new ships including upgraded armour protection. Even the RN Queen Elizabeth class had additional deck armour added and the Hood's armour was due to be upgraded had the war not intervened.The same was done to some of the USN battleships during the 20s. However, that armor was non-structural, and doing so was very expensive. Which is why it wasn't done more. They were rebuilding ships because they weren't allowed to build new ones, not because it was the best solution overall.
However that does not mean the ship can absorb twice as much punishment as two small ships! It still has the same thickness of armor, so the same weapon can get through it, and if it's hit by 2x as heavy fire it will be destroyed quicker since the fire becomes 60% more concentrated ( less then 2x as many armor columns so much bigger chance for 2 shots to hit the same place then if fire was spread equally on the two small ships ).However, damage is usually spread out more across the hull. While, yes it has the same thickness, the rng will spread that damage out. While the small ships have more armor overall, they will both start taking internal damage before the large ship. I have tested this out quite a bit. One of my posts in the 'whats going on in your battlefield' showed the results of building a big scout ship that encountered an enemy, getting all of its armor striped off from battle, yet it only took 1 - 2 hits of internal.
And please stop claiming maintenance of large ship is the same as small ones. You need absolutely massive maintenance facilities and shipyards with many millions of workers on your planets to support massive ships. This is a huge extra cost for huge ships.While yes, they do need a lot more maintenance facilities to maintain them, it usually doesn't take that long or costs that much to build them up enough.
Claiming large ships have the same maintenance, support and logistics needs as small just makes you look silly. This game is not all about the ship stats.
If this game had multiplayer and you could play competitively it's easy to prove how useless big ships are. The player aiming for small ships can quickly build up and refit his shipyards and has cranked out 50 ships and 10 times as much tonnage by the time the big shipyard has launched the first ship. And from there it becomes worse because now a new level of techs has been researched, and the player with big ships can either stick building obsolete stuff or send the only huge shipyard back to re-tooling for years, while the player with small ships can retool quickly and happily keep pumping out larger volumes of upgraded ships that hit the battlefield faster and with more tonnage.True, however it is also true that in Supreme Commander FAF a t1 bot spam will usually overrun an enemy and destroy them in the first few minutes.
And randomness also favors the smaller ships. All it takes is one unlucky hit and the big ship goes boom, while with 50+ small ships they are expendable, and magazine explosions change little or nothing since the ships are often lost on first salvo when under fire by bigger guns anyways.Incorrect. I've actually had filled missile racks and p-gens go boom in the middle of a fight in some of my large ships. To something big, it hardly notices them. They have thousands of internal HP so they can take quite a bit of internal punishment from their own components that go boom.