Historical check construction cost and maintenance/month cost

[Anavel Gato]

I feel like the economy of the latest patches are getting worse and worse, so I try to research and found out that, my Dreadnought II, 27k tons construction cost is $225,5 mil and maintenance cost is $20 mil/month. However, the average construction cost or early Dreadnought I and II (18k ~ 27k tons) is around $8,5 mil ~ $15 mil and "ANNUAL" maintenance cost is $8 mil.

Is this an attempt to stop nations to spam hundred of ships that will break the game? Or else, it's horrible when playing with too few ships on a BIG global map such as this. Or else, at least explain to me ... what kind of maintenance that cost $240 mil/ year PER SHIP? This ship maintenance a lone can build a WHOLE fleet in real life.

[hurepoix]

Originally posted by Anavel Gato:

I don't want to answer to your comment

It is not useful. To not answer, is already an answer anyway.

I can presume, I can play, too, USA at easy, then rage on the forum and complain game is too easy.

[vanDyck]

1. I didnt say economy doesnt matter, is said BALANCING doesnt matter as this is a single player game and there is no need to make all nations equally strong.

2. After you reach a certain economical level (good crew training, 200% transports, 80%+ research, maybe 2 or 3 good TFs able to fight of an AI full TF), economy doenst matter anymore. If you know what you do it makes no differnces if they have 5, 25, or 100 BBs, as with your tech advantages your TFs have a bigger crew limits, better ships, and "the player", and the AI cant use numbers in a single battle to its advantage.
In my last (pre-1.4.x) hard campaign in 1.2.99 i was able to fight off the whole world (forced alliance problems) as germany for around a year before i quit, loosing in the whole campaign from 1890-1926 ca., only ca.half a dozent TBs.

3. The AI builds smaller ships as its mostly behind in tech or doesnt replace ships until they got sunk. May have gotten better in recent patches.

4. Comparing historical costs makes only sense in the right context. So you know what a ships costs were in 1939 maybe, and that in the game its costs are x-times higher, but you need to compare it too your avaible the naval budget, and the historic naval budget back then. If thats x-times highter too, we have the same relations, just a higher number.

Also i dont think that 200.000.000 reichsmark are 4.500.000.000 US-dollars, maybe there is a mistake, but i would guess that 1 USD is mor then 1 RM. Correct me if i am wrong.

[Anavel Gato]

Originally posted by vanDyck:

1. I didnt say economy doesnt matter, is said BALANCING doesnt matter as this is a single player game and there is no need to make all nations equally strong.

2. After you reach a certain economical level (good crew training, 200% transports, 80%+ research, maybe 2 or 3 good TFs able to fight of an AI full TF), economy doenst matter anymore. If you know what you do it makes no differnces if they have 5, 25, or 100 BBs, as with your tech advantages your TFs have a bigger crew limits, better ships, and "the player", and the AI cant use numbers in a single battle to its advantage.
In my last (pre-1.4.x) hard campaign in 1.2.99 i was able to fight off the whole world (forced alliance problems) as germany for around a year before i quit, loosing in the whole campaign from 1890-1926 ca., only ca.half a dozent TBs.

3. The AI builds smaller ships as its mostly behind in tech or doesnt replace ships until they got sunk. May have gotten better in recent patches.

4. Comparing historical costs makes only sense in the right context. So you know what a ships costs were in 1939 maybe, and that in the game its costs are x-times higher, but you need to compare it too your avaible the naval budget, and the historic naval budget back then. If thats x-times highter too, we have the same relations, just a higher number.

Also i dont think that 200.000.000 reichsmark are 4.500.000.000 US-dollars, maybe there is a mistake, but i would guess that 1 USD is mor then 1 RM. Correct me if i am wrong.

First of all, I took the math of early 20s century with exchange rate to USD for all nations. Then, I found out that a historical dreadnought cost at least $9 millions USD for construction (not RM) If you add salary + fuel + ammunition, at least the existing ship cost 8-10$/year. It's 28 time lower than the game gave us.

It's mean that we are suppose to field more ships, more battles and strategy to defend convoy lanes than current setting. The Dev should work closely with historical economy to fix the current mess.

1900-1910: around 1 USD = 4,20 Goldmarks.
After 1920: due to inflation after world war, it's impossible.

But if I took the setting of 1890, then the exchange rate of 1910 should stay the same to 1940 because WWI never exist in my game.

[vanDyck]

There is still no comparison between ingame and historic naval budgets to put numbers in relations to each other. If you have 28x the budget, its just bigger numbers.

I think you missing some importand costs. A ship needs ongoing technical checks and repairs. Be it a fitting, an engine overhaul, new windows for the bridge after they gone broke during the last gun training, some new color, and so on... I dont think its gonna make it 28x more expansive, but as these ships were mostly (even if of the same class) unique, so parts had to be specially made and were high tech of their time, needing repairs and spare parts often, and therefor, costly.

Edit: Were did you get that excange course, not that i am questioning it, but i didnt found much in years before 1950 without having to pay for it...

[Anavel Gato]

Originally posted by vanDyck:

There is still no comparison between ingame and historic naval budgets to put numbers in relations to each other. If you have 28x the budget, its just bigger numbers.

I think you missing some importand costs. A ship needs ongoing technical checks and repairs. Be it a fitting, an engine overhaul, new windows for the bridge after they gone broke during the last gun training, some new color, and so on... I dont think its gonna make it 28x more expansive, but as these ships were mostly (even if of the same class) unique, so parts had to be specially made and were high tech of their time, needing repairs and spare parts often, and therefor, costly.

Edit: Were did you get that excange course, not that i am questioning it, but i didnt found much in years before 1950 without having to pay for it...

https://marcuse.faculty.history.ucsb.edu/images/bidwellmarkstodollars1915.jpg

Like I said, if WWI never happen, a BB could cost $220 mil to make and had $250 mil/year to maintain is IMPOSSIBLE.

Titanic construction cost = $7,5 million ($200 million with inflation) but we are playing a game in 1890 era, not 2023 inflation rate.

[hurepoix]

Originally posted by vanDyck:

Also i dont think that 200.000.000 reichsmark are 4.500.000.000 US-dollars, maybe there is a mistake, but i would guess that 1 USD is mor then 1 RM. Correct me if i am wrong.

IIRC in 1939 1 reichmark = 0.4 US dollar, or your need 2.5 reichmarks to obtain one dollar.
200 millions reichmarks from 1939 about 4.5 billions dollars is 1939 reichmarks vs current (today) dollars.

However trying to compare number, historical vs ingame ones, dont make much sense, since dont know the ratio devs used (if any).
It is more pertinent to ask ; in 1914 do I have a fleet comparable with what country X had at that time ? For me it is yes for top dogs, and incredibly more for underdogs.

[Anavel Gato]

Originally posted by hurepoix:

Originally posted by vanDyck:

Also i dont think that 200.000.000 reichsmark are 4.500.000.000 US-dollars, maybe there is a mistake, but i would guess that 1 USD is mor then 1 RM. Correct me if i am wrong.

IIRC in 1939 1 reichmark = 0.4 US dollar, or your need 2.5 reichmarks to obtain one dollar.
200 millions reichmarks from 1939 about 4.5 billions dollars is 1939 reichmarks vs current (today) dollars.

However trying to compare number, historical vs ingame ones, dont make much sense, since dont know the ratio devs used (if any).
It is more pertinent to ask ; in 1914 do I have a fleet comparable with what country X had at that time ? For me it is yes for top dogs, and incredibly more for underdogs.

Why not?

Just pick 1890 starting point. Compare Province GDP vs cost of 1 ship to see how many ship a nation can host.

For example, US Navy can host 54 ships in 1900, 197 ships 1910 and 342 ships in 1920, including 10 BB in 1900. However, the problem in this game that player can CONQUER other region and increase their revenue in the process, that is why I expect to grow more ship than just average 100 ships! And construction cost & maintenance cost is a BIG OBSTACLE to player to fully expand their fleet. Is that not a problem?

[Probably Lime]

At this point it seems like the best solution is to just put the campaign AI 'on rails' with a variety of difficulty modes that give it different rosters of ships per year. That seems like it would be fairly easy to implement, which would in turn make scripting reasonable fleets possible.

Having a 'historical' mode would be quite fun, I think.

Have the AI-managed campaign as 'in development' until an actual working campaign AI can be put in place.

[hurepoix]

I will probably starting a new campaign soon. The current one had reach 1936 is became too slow on my taste between each turn (and there is no more diffulties to solve). It will take a few days I think before I get an answer.
I will check the situation in 1913/1914. By this time for exemple Germany had a bit less than 1.000.000 tons of war ships and was the second in the world. it include 14 or 15 dreadnoughts.
IIRC it was about the situation in the current campaign, 20 years later country have between 1.5 to 3 millions tons of ships, 150 to 375 in numbers. I m not sure it is ships that makes the game slower and slower.

100 ships is probably ok for me around 1905-1912 I think. I understand however peoples can wish to have more, it is normal.

Nota ; conquer new territories can not be so interresting, especially if it make you spread all over the world. What is interresting is to seize rich ones. Usually colonies follows owner s dev. The difference, with time is visible.It s Like that in the 20 's Senegal can be richer than western germany. The problem is that seize colonies from a poor country like Spain is easy, but not that profitable. The best ones require to fight the powerfullest foes.

[Anavel Gato]

Originally posted by hurepoix:

I will probably starting a new campaign soon. The current one had reach 1936 is became too slow on my taste between each turn (and there is no more diffulties to solve). It will take a few days I think before I get an answer.
I will check the situation in 1913/1914. By this time for exemple Germany had a bit less than 1.000.000 tons of war ships and was the second in the world. it include 14 or 15 dreadnoughts.
IIRC it was about the situation in the current campaign, 20 years later country have between 1.5 to 3 millions tons of ships, 150 to 375 in numbers. I m not sure it is ships that makes the game slower and slower.

100 ships is probably ok for me around 1905-1912 I think. I understand however peoples can wish to have more, it is normal.

Nota ; conquer new territories can not be so interresting, especially if it make you spread all over the world. What is interresting is to seize rich ones. Usually colonies follows owner s dev. The difference, with time is visible.It s Like that in the 20 's Senegal can be richer than western germany. The problem is that seize colonies from a poor country like Spain is easy, but not that profitable. The best ones require to fight the powerfullest foes.

In my game, I annexed 50% England colony, Central Russia by 1905, but barely even to maintain my fleet of 12 BB (each cost $220 mil to build and $250 mil/year (when in reality, compare to $20 mil fuel cost of total fleet, one sing ship should be around $30-50 mil to build and average $20 mil maintenance)

[hurepoix]

12 BB ? For curiosity can we have the date and your total tonnage ?

[Anavel Gato]

Originally posted by hurepoix:

12 BB ? For curiosity can we have the date and your total tonnage ?

1905 era. The hull alone of Small Dreadnough 19,500 t = $39,5 mil, Dreadnought I 22,500 tons = $41 mil, Dreadnough II 27,500 tons = $55 mil.

After fully equip = $150-220 mil.

Compare to $20 mil/month fuel for the whole 100-150 ships, the construction and maintenance for those ship is insanely high.

[hurepoix]

Arms race was insanly costly. If you have 12 BB in 1905 it is twice that japan had at this time. Not to say it was 15 000 T pre dreadnought. Germany had 14 or 15 BB in 1913 + may be half a dozen BC (paid with debts). With 12 in 1905 era you ve no real reasons to complain, imo.
May be the real problem is your are too greedy ;-) lets time do its jobs.
For fuel ; energy was cheap, it is why the industrial revolution occured and progressed so fast.

[Toblm]

Originally posted by hurepoix:

Arms race was insanly costly. If you have 12 BB in 1905 it is twice that japan had at this time. Not to say it was 15 000 T pre dreadnought. Germany had 14 or 15 BB in 1913 + may be half a dozen BC (paid with debts). With 12 in 1905 era you ve no real reasons to complain, imo.
May be the real problem is your are too greedy ;-) lets time do its jobs.
For fuel ; energy was cheap, it is why the industrial revolution occured and progressed so fast.

It's funny you mention player greed. Player's tend to build biggest, best-est ships when real world navies rarely did. Good enough on a shoe string budget was usually historically the name of the game.

[vanDyck]

The problem is there is no reaction to your finacial actions. The typical capital ship had a lifespan of around 20 years at least, TBs and DDs a bit less, maybe 15. You should get unrest as your taxpayers wont like if you scrap ships to early (selling would be ok mostly i think), and your gouvernment should reduce your funding as it seems you have to much money if you do such things.
The whole process of ship design, getting the ok from your gouvernment, and building it, a main struggle for navys outside of war times, is missing.