TR production is too slow in late game

[Anavel Gato]

I have notice that in late game, your TR production only ... 0.1% and it will take forever to rebuild your TR fleet despite taking many territories and ports. It's like your good old shipyard has to carry your Empire on their poor back.

I don't know if this is a bug or not. Or at least increase it proportional with our shipyard expansion or shipbuilding capacity.

[cyan027]

Agree, USA once manufacture a Liberty ship in 20 days with the cost equal to ONLY 3 Spitfire fighters. Built 2710 ships in 4 years (average around 700 ship a year, almost 2 ships in 1 day.)

Maybe there should be a technology named "Project Liberty" to increase TR production rate.

[godspeedthunder]

It's not a bug, it seems intentional as it's the same every time. A steady decline no matter what, even if you never enter a war.

It's a bad system, the whole thing needs a rework but I think thats too much to ask in the time remaining.

[Commissioner Jean Claude Van Dan]

Its because as the economy grows so does the amount of TR ships you need and thus takes longer to build up to the max, it's logical and it is why you need to more and more protect your shipping.
Also maneuver warfare has loads of techs to make the TR Armed which massively decreases it's chances to be destroyed in general and in missions I think it goes up to 1000% So they're pretty well defended late game which counter acts the slow buildup.

Trick is get it up to 200% in the early game and defend it and then you never need worry about it having to be built back up, I play on legendary and it's too easy atm so no idea why you need to build it up again.

[Mat'LePreux]

Originally posted by Jean Claude Van Dan:

Its because as the economy grows so does the amount of TR ships you need and thus takes longer to build up to the max, it's logical and it is why you need to more and more protect your shipping.
Also maneuver warfare has loads of techs to make the TR Armed which massively decreases it's chances to be destroyed in general and in missions I think it goes up to 1000% So they're pretty well defended late game which counter acts the slow buildup.

Trick is get it up to 200% in the early game and defend it and then you never need worry about it having to be built back up, I play on legendary and it's too easy atm so no idea why you need to build it up again.

Didn't know that was that important. I play french and get in a war against 4 nations. I fall at 120% and it's extremely hard to get back to 200%. With a 700 000t shipyard it's imo stupid

[godspeedthunder]

Originally posted by Jean Claude Van Dan:

Its because as the economy grows so does the amount of TR ships you need and thus takes longer to build up to the max, it's logical and it is why you need to more and more protect your shipping.
Also maneuver warfare has loads of techs to make the TR Armed which massively decreases it's chances to be destroyed in general and in missions I think it goes up to 1000% So they're pretty well defended late game which counter acts the slow buildup.

Trick is get it up to 200% in the early game and defend it and then you never need worry about it having to be built back up, I play on legendary and it's too easy atm so no idea why you need to build it up again.

I think the issue is highlighted when playing as Britain and trying to protect many sea zones from convoy attacks.

Obviously the more territory you own the harder it is to protect your transports.

And seeing as taking non core territory barely helps your GDP it actively discourages you from expanding.

[Commissioner Jean Claude Van Dan]

Originally posted by godspeedthunder:

Originally posted by Jean Claude Van Dan:

Its because as the economy grows so does the amount of TR ships you need and thus takes longer to build up to the max, it's logical and it is why you need to more and more protect your shipping.
Also maneuver warfare has loads of techs to make the TR Armed which massively decreases it's chances to be destroyed in general and in missions I think it goes up to 1000% So they're pretty well defended late game which counter acts the slow buildup.

Trick is get it up to 200% in the early game and defend it and then you never need worry about it having to be built back up, I play on legendary and it's too easy atm so no idea why you need to build it up again.

I think the issue is highlighted when playing as Britain and trying to protect many sea zones from convoy attacks.

Obviously the more territory you own the harder it is to protect your transports.

And seeing as taking non core territory barely helps your GDP it actively discourages you from expanding.

Well being at war increases the budget for you, but it shrinks growth which means long drawn out wars will hamper you in the long term. Plan the wars out and make sure you can end them fast or you'll get bogged down and pay for it in the late game. But if you play UK and don't get into wars too quick, your economy will grow really nicely and you'll have plenty of money to protect everything.

[godspeedthunder]

Originally posted by Jean Claude Van Dan:

Originally posted by godspeedthunder:

I think the issue is highlighted when playing as Britain and trying to protect many sea zones from convoy attacks.

Obviously the more territory you own the harder it is to protect your transports.

And seeing as taking non core territory barely helps your GDP it actively discourages you from expanding.

Well being at war increases the budget for you, but it shrinks growth which means long drawn out wars will hamper you in the long term. Plan the wars out and make sure you can end them fast or you'll get bogged down and pay for it in the late game. But if you play UK and don't get into wars too quick, your economy will grow really nicely and you'll have plenty of money to protect everything.

I'm referring specifically to the transport slider, nothing to do with GDP in general or strategy of wars.

Just simply the effect of losing transports via convoys sunk and the ability to recover the losses to the slider.

[Commissioner Jean Claude Van Dan]

Originally posted by godspeedthunder:

Originally posted by Jean Claude Van Dan:

Well being at war increases the budget for you, but it shrinks growth which means long drawn out wars will hamper you in the long term. Plan the wars out and make sure you can end them fast or you'll get bogged down and pay for it in the late game. But if you play UK and don't get into wars too quick, your economy will grow really nicely and you'll have plenty of money to protect everything.

I'm referring specifically to the transport slider, nothing to do with GDP in general or strategy of wars.

Just simply the effect of losing transports via convoys sunk and the ability to recover the losses to the slider.

I've already covered that and I personally think it's working fine.
I was just pointing out how to manage UK if you like playing them. If you find the TR thing frustrating, plan well ahead.

[godspeedthunder]

It seems a bit too slow imo but that's fine if you disagree.

Personally I don't struggle protecting convoys, I was thinking more about the AI recovery rate if their economies take a big hit. But I suppose the game has to end some time and this is one way to draw it to a close.

[Anavel Gato]

Originally posted by godspeedthunder:

It seems a bit too slow imo but that's fine if you disagree.

Personally I don't struggle protecting convoys, I was thinking more about the AI recovery rate if their economies take a big hit. But I suppose the game has to end some time and this is one way to draw it to a close.

It's not about protecting convoy, it's about recovery rate of both AI and Player TR. The production should be double or tripple at this rate.

[godspeedthunder]

Originally posted by Anavel Gato:

Originally posted by godspeedthunder:

It seems a bit too slow imo but that's fine if you disagree.

Personally I don't struggle protecting convoys, I was thinking more about the AI recovery rate if their economies take a big hit. But I suppose the game has to end some time and this is one way to draw it to a close.

It's not about protecting convoy, it's about recovery rate of both AI and Player TR. The production should be double or tripple at this rate.

I know, I agree with you.

The protecting of the convoy is the reason that they have to recover though. If they didn't have convoy issues their slider would always be maxed out.

I just had a turn where Spain lost 40 convoys in 1 month lol. The AI is clueless in pretty much every regard. This is why I mainly play custom battles.

[Commissioner Jean Claude Van Dan]

Originally posted by Anavel Gato:

Originally posted by godspeedthunder:

It seems a bit too slow imo but that's fine if you disagree.

Personally I don't struggle protecting convoys, I was thinking more about the AI recovery rate if their economies take a big hit. But I suppose the game has to end some time and this is one way to draw it to a close.

It's not about protecting convoy, it's about recovery rate of both AI and Player TR. The production should be double or tripple at this rate.

I kinda disagree, but maybe they could find a happy medium, like whatever Tonage you're not using as military ship building this could be added to boost TR reproduction. That would make sense.
Thing is the reason why the TRs in say 1920 are 3 times as long to build as in 1890 is that you'd only need 100s of them in 1890s but 1000s in 1920 and since the ships are getting larger as time goes on and having guns added they will slow down in production not speed up. Especially since in 1920s+ you're dealing with GDPs of billions of dollars not millions.

[Anavel Gato]

Originally posted by Jean Claude Van Dan:

Originally posted by Anavel Gato:

It's not about protecting convoy, it's about recovery rate of both AI and Player TR. The production should be double or tripple at this rate.

I kinda disagree, but maybe they could find a happy medium, like whatever Tonage you're not using as military ship building this could be added to boost TR reproduction. That would make sense.
Thing is the reason why the TRs in say 1920 are 3 times as long to build as in 1890 is that you'd only need 100s of them in 1890s but 1000s in 1920 and since the ships are getting larger as time goes on and having guns added they will slow down in production not speed up. Especially since in 1920s+ you're dealing with GDPs of billions of dollars not millions.

You sound illogical. By 1910, I completely annex Spain and China. Defeat England, France and Soviet and take their territory with total shipbuilding capacity at 550,000 tons. Max shipyard size: 100,000 tons. In theory, my shipbuilding should be equal to at least 3 nation combine or more (x5 times) due to the size of my territory. I find your point illogical because the production power is based on quantity of production facilities, not the size and duration of the transport.

How can my production of 86 provinces is the same as 30 provinces (at the start)?

[Commissioner Jean Claude Van Dan]

Originally posted by Steel Rain:

Originally posted by glythe:

Yea that absolutely makes no sense.

Considering that more ports = harder to defend it would make sense that more ports= more transport production.



We can't play France ITA or AUS every game where it is a joke to defend your transports compared to say GER/ENG.

Every twp years the port capacity goes up. it would make sense that if you always build the max port upgrade your transports should recover in 1890 just as fast as they do in 1940.

This would also make the AI better able to recover from losing which would make for a more fun game.

This in a nut shell is why this games Campaign sucks. There is no reason to do anything other than sit in ports waiting for your missions. Its unbelievable to me that the campaign lacks even basic strategic elements.

Folks, if you are holding out for major improvements here, I think you are wasting your time. There is no way they can implement any real feature adds to the campaign without introducing game killing bugs that would take months to fix. So, in the 5 months remaining, they should just clean up the bugs, update the documentation, then abandon the game as planned. My .02 worth.

Well campaign is broken atm for a different reason, but pre-1.2 I could take over the world very easily. So there is loads more to to do than just sitting in the ports waiting on missions.

[Anavel Gato]

Originally posted by Steel Rain:

Originally posted by Jean Claude Van Dan:

Well campaign is broken atm for a different reason, but pre-1.2 I could take over the world very easily. So there is loads more to to do than just sitting in the ports waiting on missions.

Sure you can take over the world. I ahve done so as well, but why? It gains you nothing. Every time you lose, you lose VPs. When you win, you get zip. So, while worthwhile once, I still claim I can out VP anyone going to the conquest route, by just sitting in port.

But, that being said, I glad you enjoy the campaign. You are not alone for sure. Just for me, there are no meaningful decisions that have to be made so, I just play the quick battles now.

You can't fully annex a nation by sitting in port because they don't sell core regions. That's why you have to mobilize your fleet and capture all of them ... in 1 turn. That's the goal for an Ultimate Conqueror.

So, build your fleet well, invade and protect your landing. It's ok if you are there for small battle, I'm not into it though, as a Total War player.